State poverty rates: Do the new welfare policies make a difference?

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 657-679

  Rodgers Jr , Harrell R ^a   Payne, Lee ^a   Chervachidze, Serguei ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POVERTY; SOCIAL POLICY; WELFARE PROVISION; WELFARE REFORM;

EID: 33646714461     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00222.x     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Acs, G., & Loprest, P. (2001). Initial synthesis report of the findings from ASPE's leavers grants. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
2. Acs, G., Loprest, P., & Roberts, T. (2001). Final synthesis report of the findings from ASPE's leavers grants. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
3. Aschauer, D. A. (2001, October). Output and employment effects of public capital. Journal of Public Budgeting and Management, 135-160.
4. Bailey, M. A. (2005, February). Welfare and the multifaceted decision to move. American Political Science Review, 1(1), 125-135.
5. Bailey, M. A., & Rom, M. C. (2004). A wider race? Interstate competition across health and welfare programs. The Journal of Politics, 66(2), 326-347.
6. Barrilleaux, C., Holbrook, T., & Langer, L. (2002). Electoral competition, legislative balance, and American state welfare policy. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 415-427.
7. Barrilleaux, C., & Miller, M. E. (1998). The political economy of state Medicaid policy. American Political Science Review, 82, 1089-1107.
8. Bell, S. H. (2001). Why are welfare caseloads falling? Assessing the New Federalism. Discussion Paper 01-02. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
9. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
10. Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., & Hanson, R. L. (2003). Reassessing the "Race to the bottom" thesis: A spatial dependence model of state welfare policy. Journal of Politics, 659(2), 327-349.
11. Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E., Fording, R., & Hanson, R (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Politics, 42, 327-348.
12. Blank, R. M. (1994). The employment strategy: Public policies to increase work and earnings. In S. Danziger, G. Sandefur & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Confronting poverty: Prescriptions for change (pp. 168-204). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Blank, R. M. (1997). Why has economic growth been such an ineffective tool against poverty in recent years? In J. Neil (Ed.), Poverty and inequality: The political economy of redistribution (pp. 188-210). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
14. Blank, R. M. (2000). What causes public assistance caseloads to grow? Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 85-118.
15. Blank, R. M. (2001). Declining caseloads, increased work: What can we conclude about the effects of welfare reform? Economics Policies Review, 7(2), 25-36.
16. Blank, R. M. (2002b). Redistribution of personal incomes, education, and economic performance across countries. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 299. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.
17. Blank, R. M., & Ruggles, P. (1996). When do women use AFDC and food stamps? The dynamics of eligibility vs. participation. Journal of Human Resources, 31(1), 57-89.
18. Bloom, D., & Michalopoulos, C. (2001). How welfare and work policies affect employment and income: A synthesis of research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.
19. Brace, P., & Jewett, A. (1995). The state of state politics research. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 643-681.
20. Brown, M. K. (1999). Race, money, and the American welfare state. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21. Brown, R. D. (1995). Party cleavages and welfare effort in the American states. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 23-33.
22. Burtless, G. (1995). Employment prospects of welfare recipients. In D. S. Nightingale & R. H. Haverman (Eds.), The work alternative: Welfare reform and the realities of the job market. (pp. 216-240). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
23. Cheng, T. (1995). The chances of recipients leaving AFDC: A longitudinal study. Social Work Research, 19(2), 67-96.
24. Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., Heflin, C., Kahl, A., Levine, J., et al. (2000). Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. In R. Cherry & W. M. Rodgers (Eds.), Prosperity for all? The economic boom and African Americans (pp. 245-278). New York: Russell Sage.
25. Danziger, S., Helflin, C., Corcoran, M., Oitmans, E., & Hui-Chen, W. (2002). Does it pay to move from welfare to work? Population Studies Center Research Report 00-449. August. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
26. Devere, C. (2001). Welfare reform research: What do we know about those who leave welfare? Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
27. Elazar, D. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states. (3rd Ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
28. Erikson, R., Wright, G., & McIver, J. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Fender, L., McKernan, S., & Bernstein, J. (2002). Linking state TANF and related policies to outcomes: Preliminary typologies and analysis. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
30. Figlio, D. N., & Ziliak, J. P. (1999). Welfare reform, the business cycle, and the decline in AFDC caseloads. In S. Danziger (Ed.), Economic conditions and welfare reform (pp. 17-48). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute Employment Research.
31. Fording, R. (2001). The political response to black insurgency: A critical test of competing theories of the state. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 115-130.
32. Fording, R. (2003). Laboratories of democracy or symbolic politics? The racial origins of welfare reform. In S. F. Schram, J. Soss, & R. Fording (Eds.), Race, welfare, and the politics of reform (pp. 107-129). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33. Fremstad, S. (2004). Recent welfare reform research findings: Implications for TANF reauthorization and state TANF policies. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
34. Friedlander, D., & Burtless, G. (1995). Five years after: The long-term effects of welfare-to-work programs. New York: Russell Sage.
35. Fritzell, J., & Ritakallio, V. (2004, September). Societal shifts and changed patterns of poverty. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 393. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.
36. Gais, T., & Weaver, R. K. (2002). State policy choices under welfare reform (Policy Brief No. 22). In I. Sawhill, et al. (Eds.), Welfare reform and beyond: The future of the safety net (pp. 317-342). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
37. Garfinkel, I., Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2004a, October 29). Welfare state expenditures and the redistribution of well-being: Children, elders, and others in comparative perspective. Washington, DC: Association for Public Policy Analysis.
38. Garfinkel, I., Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2004b, June). Welfare state expenditures and the distribution of child opportunities. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 379. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.
39. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40. Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
41. Greenberg, M., Mezey, J., & Schumacher, R. (2003). Child care funding: The story since 1996, the challenges in reauthorization. Center for Law and Social Policy.
42. Harris, K. M. (1996). Life after welfare: Women, work and repeat dependency. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 407-426.
43. Holzer, H. J., Stoll, M. A., & Wissoker, D. (2001). Job performance and retention among welfare recipients. Discussion Paper No. 1237-01. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute Research on Poverty.
44. Howard, C. (1999). The American welfare state, or states? Political Research Quarterly, 52, 421-442.
45. Hoynes, H. W. (1996). Local labor markets and welfare spells: Do demand conditions matter? Discussion Paper No. 1104-96. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.
46. Hoynes, H. W., & MaCurdy, T. (1994). Has the decline in benefits shortened welfare spells? American Economic Review, 84(2), 43-48.
47. Kinder, D., & Sanders, L. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Lane, J., & Stevens, D. (2001). Welfare-to-work outcomes: The role of the employer. Southern Economics Journal, 67(4), 1010-1021.
49. Lemke, R. J., Witt, R., & Witte, A. D. (2001). Child care and the welfare to work transition. Working Paper. Economics Department, Wellesley College.
50. Lieberman, R. C., & Shaw, G. M. (2000). Looking inward, looking outward: The politics of state welfare innovation under devolution. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 215-240.
51. Loprest, P. (2001). How are families that left welfare doing? A comparison of early and recent welfare leavers. Series B, No. B-36. Assessing the New Federalism Project. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
52. Martinson, K. (2000). The national evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies evaluation: The experience of welfare recipients who find jobs. Washington, DC: MDRC for the United States Department Health Human Services.
53. Mead, L. (1997). The new paternalism: Supervisory approaches to poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
54. Mead, L. M. (2004). Welfare reform and good government. In L. M. Mead, Government matters: Welfare reform in Wisconsin (pp. 214-244). Princeton, NJ and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.
55. Mettler, S. (2000). States rights, women's obligations: Contemporary welfare reform in historical perspective. Women and Politics, 21(1), 1-34.
56. Meyers, M., Gornick, J., & Peck, L. (2001, August). More? Less? Or more of the same? Trends in state-level social policy after the devolution revolution. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association meetings, San Francisco.
57. Mezey, J., Greenberg, M., & Schumacher, R. (2002, October 2). The vast majority of federally-eligible children did not receive child assistance in FY 2000. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
58. Moller, S., Huber, E., Stephens, J., Bradley, D., & Nielsen, F. (2003, February). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68, 22-51.
59. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1996).
60. Peterson, P. E., & Rom, M. C. (1989). American federalism, welfare policy, and residential choices. American Political Science Review, 83, 711-729.
61. Peterson, P. E., & Rom, M. C. (1990). Welfare magnets: A new case for a national welfare standard. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
62. Plotnick, R. D., & Winters, R. F. (1985). A politico-economic theory of income redistribution. American Political Science Review, 79, 458-473.
63. Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2003). Poor kids in a rich country (chap. 11). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
64. Rehme, G. (2002). Education, economic growth, and personal income inequality across (rich) countries. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 300. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.
65. Ritakallio, V. (2002). Trends of poverty and income inequality in cross-national comparison. European Journal of Social Security, 4, 151-177.
66. Rodgers, H. R. (2005a). American poverty in an era of reform. (2nd Ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
67. Rodgers, H. R. (2005b, April 8). Measuring the devolution revolution: State performance under PRWORA. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Convention.
68. Rodgers, H. R. (2005c). Saints, stalwarts, and slackers: State financial contributions to welfare reform. Policy Studies Review, 33(4), 497-508.
69. Rom, M. (1999). Transforming state health and welfare programs. In V. Gray & H. Jacobs (Eds.), Politics in the American states (pp. 117-131). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
70. Rom, M., Peterson, P., & Scheve, K. (1998). Interstate competition and welfare policy. Publius, 28, 17-37.
71. Saavedra, L. A. (2000, March). A model of welfare competition with evidence from AFDC. Journal of Urban Economics, 47, 248-279.
72. Schram, S. (1999). Welfare reform: A race to the bottom? In S. F. Schram & S. H. Beer (Eds.), Welfare reform: A race to the bottom? (pp. 165-187). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
73. Schram, S. F., Soss, J., & Fording, R. C. (Eds.). (2003). Race and the politics of welfare reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
74. Scrivener, S., Snipes, J., Hamilton, G., & Bos, J. (1998). National evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts of the Portland (Oregon) welfare-to-work program. [Executive Summary]. Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/portland/xsportld.htm
75. Smeeding, T. M. (2004, February 20). Public policy, economic inequality, and poverty: The United States in comparative perspective. Paper presented at the Inequality and American Politics Conference, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
76. Soss, J., Schram, S. F., Varanian, T. P., & O'Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 378-395.
77. Strawn, J., Greenberg, M., & Savner, S. (2001). From welfare-to-work to workforce development. In R. Blank & R. Haskins (Eds.), The new world of welfare (pp. 223-244). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
78. Tannenwald, R. (1999, July/August). Fiscal disparity among the states revisited. New England Economic Review, 3-25.
79. Tobin, J. (1994). Poverty in relation to macroeconomic trends, cycles and policies. In S. Danziger, G. D. Sandefur, & D. H. Weinberg (Eds.), Confronting poverty: Prescriptions for change. New York: Russell Sage.
80. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2004a). Administration for children and families, TANF, 6th annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author.
81. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2004b). Spending on social welfare in rich and poor states. Washington, DC: Author, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
82. United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Child care: Recent state policy changes affecting the availability of assistance for low-income families. Washington, DC: Author. Washington, DC: Author.
83. Volden, C. (2003). The politics of competitive federalism: A race to the bottom in welfare benefits? American Journal of Political Science, 46(20), 352-364.
84. Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
85. Weil, A. (2000). Program redesign by states in the wake of welfare reform: Making sense of the effects of devolution. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
86. Wright, G. (1976). Racism and welfare policy in America. Social Science Quarterly, 57, 718-730.
87. Wu, C., Cancian, M., Meyer, D., & Wallace, G. (2004). How do welfare sanctions work? Discussion Paper No. 1282-04. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
88. Zedlewski, S. R., & Loprest, P. (2001). Will TANF work for the most disadvantaged families? In R. Blank & R. Haskins (Eds.), The new world of welfare (pp. 311-334). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.