Welfare recipient views about caseworker performance: Lessons for developing TANF case management practices

Families in Society

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 165-174

  Anderson, Steven G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035289555     PISSN: 10443894     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1606/1044-3894.204     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Anderson, S. G. (1998). The knowledge of welfare recipients about work incentives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
2. Bane, M. J., & Ellwood, D. T. (1994). Welfare realities: From rhetoric to reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Bloom, D., & Butler, D. (1995). Implementing time-limited welfare: Early experiences in three states. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
4. Bowers, B., Esmond, S., & Canales, M. (1999). Approaches to case management supervision. Administration in Social Work, 23, 29-48.
5. Brodkin, E. Z. (1986). The false promise of administrative reform: Implementing quality reform in welfare. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
6. Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71, 1-33.
7. Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago. (1998). Welfare reform at age one: Early indicators of impact on clients and agencies based on reports from community-based service providers. Chicago: Chicago Urban League.
8. Center on Hunger and Poverty. (1998). Are states improving the lives of poor families? A scale measure of state welfare policies. Tufts University, Medford, MA.
9. Chapin, R. K. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective. Social Work, 40, 506-514.
10. Coalition on Human Needs. (1988). How the poor would remedy poverty. Washington, DC: Coalition on Human Needs.
11. Cohen, M. (1998). Perceptions of power in client/worker relationships. Families in Society, 79, 433-442.
12. DeParle, J. (1998, October 18). Wisconsin's welfare experiment: Easy to say, not so easy to do. New York Times.
13. Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
14. Fabricant, M. , & Burghardt, S. 1992. The welfare state crisis and the transformation of social service work. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.
15. Goldstein, H. (1983). Starting where the client is. Families in Society, 64, 267-275.
16. Grumman, C. (1998, July 5). Welfare's down; but what's up? Chicago Tribune.
17. Gutierrez, L., Delois, K., & GlenMaye, L. (1995). Understanding empowerment practice: Building on practitioner-based knowledge. Families in Society, 76, 534-542.
18. Gutierrez, L., GlenMaye, L, & Delois, K. (1995). The organizational context of empowerment Practice: Implications for social work administration. Social Work, 40, 250-258.
19. Hagen, J. L. (1999). Public welfare and human services: New directions under TANF? Families in Society, 80, 78-89.
20. Hagen, J. L., & Lurie, I. (1994). Implementing jobs: Progress and promise. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.
21. Halpern, R. (1999). Fragile families, fragile solutions: A history of supportive services for families in poverty. New York: Columbia University Press.
22. Handler, J. F., & Hollingsworth, E. J. (1971). The deserving poor: A study of welfare administration. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
23. Hasenfeld, Y. (1998) Welfare reform and social services: Myth and reality. Paper presented at the 1997/1998 Visiting Scholars Program. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, School of Social Work.
24. Herr, T., Wagner, S., & Halpern, R. (1996). Making the shoe fit: Creating a work-prep system for a large and diverse welfare population. Chicago: Erikson Institute.
25. Lee, J. (1994). The Empowerment Approach to Practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
26. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
27. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
28. Loprest, P. (1999). Families who left welfare: Who are they and how are they doing? Assessing the new federalism, Discussion Paper 99-02. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
29. Myers, M. K. , Glaser, B., Dillon, N, & McDonald, K. (1996). Institutional paradoxes? Why welfare workers can't reform welfare. UC Data, Working Paper No. 7. Berkely: University of California.
30. Rangarajan, A. (1998). Keeping welfare recipients employed: A guide for states designing job retention services. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
31. Rank, M. R. (1994). Living on the edge. New York: Columbia University Press.
32. Roberts-Degennaro, M. (1987). Developing case management as a practice model. Social Casework, 68, 466-470.
33. Saleebey, D., (Ed.). (1997). The strengths perspective in social work practice (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
34. Southport Institute for Policy Analysis. (1992). It's not like they say: Welfare recipients talk about welfare, work, and education. Washington, DC: Southport Institute for Policy Analysis.
35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Change in TANF caseloads since the enactment of new welfare law [On-line]. Available: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/aug-sept.htm
37. Weaver, D., & Hasenfeld, Y. (1997). Case management practices, participants' responses, and compliance in welfare-to-work programs. Social Work Research, 21, 92-100.
38. Welfare Reform Information Center and the Poverty Law Project of the NCLS. (1999, January). Widespread confusion on Illinois TANF rules: Responsibilities, rights, opportunities a mystery to recipients and caseworkers alike. Illinois Welfare News, 4 (5).