New spaces for the local welfare state? The case of general relief in Los Angeles county

Social and Cultural Geography

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 229-246

  DeVerteuil, Geoffrey ^a   Lee, Woobae ^b   Wolch, Jennifer ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b Kyeongnam Development Institute   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

General Relief; Local welfare state; Los Angeles County

Indexed keywords

BUREAUCRACY; DEVOLUTION; SOCIAL POLICY; WELFARE PROVISION;

CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES COUNTY; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 0012606278     PISSN: 14649365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1464936022000003514     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Brown, M. (1993) The possibility of local autonomy, Urban Geography 13: 257-279.
2. Clark, G. and Dear, M. (1984) State Apparatus: Structures and Language of Legitimacy. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
3. Cope, M. (1997) Responsibility, regulation, and retrenchment: the end of welfare?, in Staeheli, L., Kodras, J. and Flint, C. (eds) State Devolution in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 181-205.
4. Danziger, S. and Kossoudji, S. (1995) When Welfare Ends: Final Report of the General Assistance Project. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Social Work.
5. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1987) Administrative Directive #2840 (General Relief Eligibility Automated Tracking (GREAT) Pilot - Civic Center District). City of Industry, CA: DPSS.
6. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1989) Administrative Directive #3501. Centralized Denial/Termination and Notice of Action for GREAT and ASAP. City of Industry, CA: DPSS.
7. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1990) GR Discontinuance with 60 Day Sanction County of Los Angeles, 1985-1990 City of Industry, CA: BAP (Bureau of Assistance Payment).
8. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1997) Welfare Caseloads and Labor Market January 1976-December 1997. City of Industry, CA: Bureau of Administrative Services, Research and Statistics Section.
9. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1999a) Caseload Characteristics, Los Angeles County Totals: Report Month of April 1999. City of Industry, CA: Bureau of Administrative Services, Research and Statistics Section.
10. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1999b) GROW: General Relief Opportunities for Work. City of Industry, CA: DPSS.
11. Department of Public and Social Services, Los Angeles County (1999c) Department of Public and Social Services Website, Benefit Issuance Locations, .
12. DeVerteuil, G. (2001) Welfare reform and welfare neighborhoods: individual and institutional perspective, PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Southern California.
13. DeVerteuil, G., Sommer, H., Wolch, J. and Takahashi, L. (forthcoming) The local welfare state in transition: welfare reform in Los Angeles County, in Halle, D. (ed.) New York and Los Angeles: Politics Society and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Dunlevy, P. (1991) Justice Served: The Story of a Skid Row Law Firm Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
15. Force, P., Flaming, D., Henly, J. and Drayse, M. (1998) By the Sweat of Their Brow: Welfare to Work in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Economic Roundtable.
16. Gallagher, L.J, Uccello, C., Pierce, A. and Reidy, E. (1999) State General Assistance Programs 1998. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
17. Goodwin, M., Duncan, S. and Halford, S. (1993) Regulation theory, the local state, and the transition of urban politics, Environment and Planning D 11: 67-88.
18. Halter, A. (1992) Homeless in Philadelphia: a qualitative study of the impact of state welfare reform on individuals, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 19: 17-19.
19. Jessop, B. (1994) Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on Post-Fordist political economy, Studies in Political Economy 40: 7-40.
20. Kirby, A. (1990) A smoking gun: relations between the state and local state in the case of firearms control, Policy Studies Journal 18: 739-754.
21. Kodras, J. (1997) Restructuring the state: devolution, privatization, and the geographic redistribution of power and capacity in governance, in Staeheli, L., Kodras, J. and Flint, C. (eds) State Devolution in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 79-96.
22. Kost, K. (1997) A man without a job is a dead man: the meaning of work and welfare in the lives of young men, Journal of Sociology and Social Work 23: 91-111.
23. Laws, G. (1988) Privatization and the local welfare state: the case of Toronto's social services, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 13: 433-448.
24. Laws, G. (1989) Privatization and dependency on the local welfare state, in Wolch, J. and Dear, M. (eds.) The Power of Geography: How Territory Shapes Social Life. Boston: Unwin Hyman, pp. 238-258.
25. Lee, W. (1994) Restructuring the local welfare state: a case study of Los Angeles, PhD dissertation, School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern California.
26. Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
27. Lipsky, M. (1984) Bureaucratic distentitlement in social welfare programs, Social Service Review 58: 3-27.
28. Los Angeles County (2000) General Relief Opportunities for Work (GROW) Request for Proposals. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County SDA.
29. Los Angeles Times (1998) Supervisors OK plan to link aid, job training, 16 Dec.
30. Meyer, J. (1997) County expected to slash General Relief, Los Angeles Times, 17 May.
31. Mitchell, K. (2001) Transnationalism, neo-liberalism, and the rise of the shadow state, Economy and Society 30: 165-189.
32. Moon, A. and Schneiderman, L. (1995) Assessing the Growth of California's General Assistance Program. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar.
33. Passaro, J. (1996) The Unequal Homeless: Men on the Streets, Women in Their Place. New York: Routledge.
34. Peck, J. (2001a) Workfare States. London: Guilford Press.
35. Peck, J. (2001b) Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes, Progress in Human Geography 25: 445-455.
36. Reese, E. (2000) Making and seizing political opportunities: the struggle to improve General Relief policies in Los Angeles County, paper, Annual Meeting of the California Sociological Association, Riverside, CA.
37. Riccardi, N. (1999) Supervisors delay General Relief cutoff, Los Angeles Times, 17 Nov.
38. Schultz, D. (1987) Estimated costs of eliminating/reading the GR 60-Day Penalty, Letter. DPSS, County of Los Angeles, 6 April.
39. Schultz, D. (1988) Centralized termination activity for ASAP and GREAT, Letter. DPSS, County of Los Angeles, 5 August.
40. Shelter Partnership (1999) A Report on the Impacts of the Implementation of the Five Month Time Limit on General Relief Cash Benefits in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: Shelter Partnership.
41. Shelter Partnership (2001) A Survey of General Relief Recipients: Housing, Utilization of Systems of Care, and Employability Status. Los Angeles: Shelter Partnership and Public Counsel Law Center.
42. Smith, N. (1996) The Revanchist City. New York: Blackwell Press.
43. Soule, S. and Zylan, Y. (1997) Runaway train? The diffusion of state-level reform in ADC/AFDC eligibility requirements, 1950-1967, American Journal of Sociology 103: 733-762.
44. State of California (1940) Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1700.
45. State of California (1997) Senate Bill No. 681.
46. Tanaka, E. (1984) Potential impact on a moratorium on the 60-day penalty for noncompliance with General Relief employable requirement, Letter. DPSS, County of Los Angeles, 31 Dec.
47. Ventura, C.R. (1986) General Relief Workfare Project Review - final report, Letter. DPSS, Administrative Office, County of Los Angeles, 20 March.
48. Wolch, J. (1990) The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary Sector in Transition. New York: The Foundation Center.
49. Wolch, J. (1998) America's new urban policy: welfare reform and the late of American cities, Journal of the American Planning Association 64: 8-10.
50. Wolch, J. (2001) Decentering America's nonprofit sector: reflections on Salomon's crises analysis, in Anheier, H. and Kendall, J. (eds) Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads: An International Nonprofit Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 51-60.
51. Wolch, J. and Dear, M. (1993) Malign Neglect: Homelessness in an American City. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52. Wolch, J. and Sommer, H. (1997) Los Angeles in an Era of Welfare Reform: Implications for Poor People and Community Well-being. Los Angeles: The Southern California Inter-University Consortium of Homelessness and Poverty.
53. Zarcone, J. (1985) Savings estimates of GR 60-day sanction, Letter. DPSS, County of Los Angeles, 23 Dec.
54. Zeineddin, A. (1999) The Board extends GR aid for three more months and order DPSS to revise GROW. Report. Los Angeles: Shelter Partnership.