Toward a general analytic framework: Organizational settings, policy goals, and street-level behavior

Administration and Society

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 335-364

  Jewell, Christopher J ^a   Glaser, Bonnie E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Framework; Implementation; Welfare policy; Welfare reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744813271     PISSN: 00953997     EISSN: 15523039     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0095399706288581     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bane, M., & Ellwood, D. (1994). Welfare realities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Baumgartner, M. P. (1992). The myth of discretion. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The uses of discretion (pp. 129-162). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
3. Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Brodkin, E. (1986). The false promise of administrative reform - Implementing quality control in welfare. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
5. Brodkin, E. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71 (1). 1-33.
6. Brodkin, E. Z. (1995). The state side of the "welfare contract": Discretion and accountability in policy delivery. (Working Paper #6). Chicago: University of Chicago School of Social Services Administration.
7. Diller, M. (2000). The revolution in welfare administration: Rules, discretion, and entrepreneurial government. New York University Law Review, 75, 1121-1223.
8. Elmore, R. (1982). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. In W. Williams (Ed.), Studying implementation (pp. 18-35). New York: Catham.
9. Gais, T. L. (2002). Welfare reform findings in brief. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
10. Gooden, S. (1998). All things not being equal: Differences in caseworker support toward Black and White welfare clients. Harvard Journal of African-American Public Policy, 4 (3). 23-33.
11. Gooden, S., Doolittle, F., & Glispie, B. (2001). Matching applicants with services: Initial assessments in the Milwaukee County W-2 program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
12. Gueron, J. M. (1996). Welfare and poverty: Strategies to increase work. In M. R. Darby (Ed.), Reducing poverty in America - Views and approaches (pp. 235-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Hagen, J. L. (1987). Income maintenance workers: Technicians or service providers? Social Service Review, 61 (2). 261-271.
14. Hagen, J. L., & Owens-Manley, J. (2002). Issues in implementing TANF in New York: The perspective of frontline workers. Social Work, 47 (2). 171-182.
15. Handler, J., & Hollingsworth, E. (1971). "The deserving poor" - A study of welfare administration. Chicago: Markham.
16. Hasenfeld, Y. (1983). Human service organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Hasenfeld, Y. (1992). Human services as complex organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Jewell, C. (2003). Responding to need in the "three worlds of social welfare": How welfare state traditions and social service organizations impact the role caseworkers play in shaping welfare policy in the United States, Germany and Sweden. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. ProQuest's Digital Dissertations database (AAT 2105253).
19. Klerman, J., Zellman, G., & Steinberg, P. (2001). Welfare reform in California: State and county implementation of CalWORKS in the second year. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
20. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
21. Martinson, K., & Holcomb, P. (2002). Reforming welfare: Institutional change and challenges. Occasional Paper Number 60. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
22. Meyers, M., & Dillon, N. (1999). Institutional paradoxes: Why welfare workers cannot reform welfare. In H. G. Frederickson & J. M. Johnston (Eds.), Public management reform and innovation: Research, theory and application (pp. 230-258). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
23. Meyers, M., Glaser, B., & Mac Donald, K. (1998). On the front lines of welfare delivery: Are workers implementing policy reforms? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17 (1). 1-22.
24. Meyers, M., Riccucci, N., & Lurie, I. (2001). Achieving goal congruence in complex environments: The case of welfare reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11 (2). 165-201.
25. National Association of Social Workers. (2006). Cultural competence in the social work profession. In National Association of Social Worker (Eds.), Social work speaks: NASW policy statements, 2003-2006 (6th ed., pp. 71-74). Annapolis Jct, MD: Author.
26. Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35-72). Boulder, CO: Westview.
27. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Schlager, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 233-260). Boulder, CO: Westview.
29. Scrivener, S., Walter, J., Brock, T., & Hamilton, G. (2001). National evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies: Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and three-year impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
30. Simon, W. H. (1983). Legality, bureaucracy, and class in the welfare system. Yale Law Journal, 92, 1198-1250.
31. University of California, Data Archive and Technical Assistance Report. (1994a). Assistance payments demonstration project process evaluation: Welfare reform in California - Phase I. Berkeley, CA: Author.
32. University of California, Data Archive and Technical Assistance Report. (1994b). California work pays demonstration project: Process evaluation - Phase II. Berkeley, CA: Author.
33. University of California, Data Archive and Technical Assistance Report. (1994c). California work pays demonstration project: Communication of work incentives. Berkeley, CA: Author.
34. University of California, Data Archive and Technical Assistance Report. (1997a) California work pays demonstration project: Process evaluation - Phase III. Berkeley, CA: Author.
35. University of California, Data Archive and Technical Assistance Report. (1997b). California work pays demonstration project: Process evaluation - Phase IV. Berkeley, CA: Author.