Taming the beast: Categorizing state welfare policies: A typology of welfare policies affecting recipient job entry

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 443-460

  McKernan, Signe Mary ^a   Bernstein, Jen ^b   Fender, Lynne ^a  

^a URBAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 16244390241     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20102     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Aldenfelder, M.S., & Blashfield, R.K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Sage University Paper. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences.
2. Committee for Economic Development. (2000). Welfare reform and beyond: Making work work. Committee for Economic Development. New York, NY: Committee for Economic Development.
3. De Jong, G.F., Graefe, D.R., & St. Pierre, T. (2001). Measuring interstate welfare policy variations: Inequalities and change in policy dimensions over the reform implementation period. Presented at the 23rd Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
4. Fender, L., McKernan, S.-M., & Bernstein, J. (2002). Linking state TANF and related policies to outcomes: Preliminary typologies and analysis. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm? IDs410607; accessed 10/20/04.
5. Gais, T., & Weaver, R.K. (2002). State policy choices under welfare reform. Welfare Reform & Beyond, Policy Brief No. 21. Washington, DC.: The Brookings Institution.
6. Kennedy, P. (1998). A guide to econometrics, fourth edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7. Kim, J.-O. & Mueller, C.C. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues, Sage University Paper. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences.
8. Meyers, M., Gornick, J.C., & Peck, L.R. (2001). Packaging support for low-income families: Policy variation across the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3).
9. Rector, R.E., & Youssef, S.E. (1999). The determinants of welfare caseload decline. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, May.
10. Rowe, G. (2000). State TANF policies as of July 1999. Welfare Rules Databook. Assessing the New Federalism. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, November.
11. Soss, J., Schram, S., Vartanian, T., & O'Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: Political explanations for state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2).
12. StataCorp. (2001). Stata statistical software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
13. TANF Typologies Database. (2002). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Available at http://tanf.urban.org/typologies/; accessed 10/20/04.
14. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). Temporary assistance for needy families program: Program instruction, formula for awarding the first high performance bonus in fiscal year 1999, no. TANF-ACF-PI-98-01. Washington DC.
15. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Temporary assistance for needy families program: Program instruction, formula for awarding the high performance bonus in fiscal year 2000 no. TANF-ACF-PI-99-1. Washington DC.
16. United States General Accounting Office. (2000). Welfare reform: State sanction policies and number of families affected. Tech. Rept. no. GAO/HEHS-00-44. Washington DC.
17. Weil, A. (2002). Program redesign by states in the wake of welfare reform: Making sense of the effects of devolution. In G. Duncan & P.L. Chase-Lansdale (Eds.), For better and for worse: Welfare reform and the well-being of children and families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
18. The Welfare Rules Database. (2000). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Available at http://newfederalism.urban.org/wrd; accessed 10/20/04.