Welfare receipt and substance-abuse treatment among low-income mothers: The impact of welfare reform

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 96, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2024-2031

  Pollack, Harold A ^a,d   Reuter, Peter ^b,c  

^a The University of Chicago   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DRUG DEPENDENCE; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; LAW; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MOTHER; SOCIAL WELFARE; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN; ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; MIDDLE AGED; MOTHERS; POVERTY; PREVALENCE; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIAL WELFARE; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33750461655     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.061762     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, American Public Human Services Association. Building Bridges: States Respond to Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform. New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; 1999.
2. Califano J. It's Drugs, Stupid. New York Times Sunday Magazine. January 29, 1995:40-41.
3. Weaver RK. Ending Welfare as We Know It: Policy Making for Low-Income Families in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2000.
4. Schoeni RM, Blank RF. What Has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impact on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure. Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2000.
5. Danziger SH. Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform: What Are the Early Lessons? Kalamazoo, Mich: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 1999.
6. Danziger SH, Haveman RH. Understanding Poverty. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 2001.
7. Metsch LR, Pollack HA. Welfare reform and substance abuse. Milbank Q. 2005;83:65-99.
8. Green Book Overview of Entitlement Programs. Washington, DC: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means; 2000.
9. Lichter D, Jayakody R. Welfare reform: how do we measure success? Annu Rev Sociol. 2002;28:117-141.
10. Kaufman L. New York says those on welfare are increasingly hard to employ. New York Times. November 29, 2002:A1.
11. Danziger SK, Corcoran M, Danziger S, et al. Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. In: Cherry R, Rogers WM, eds. Prosperity for All? The Economic Boom and African-Americans. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 2000.
12. Loprest PJ. Families Who Left Welfare: Who Are They and How Are They Doing? Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 1999. Report No. 99-02.
13. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Pub L No. 104-193, 110 Stat 2105. (1996).
14. Morgenstern J, Riordan A, McCrady B, McVeigh K, Blanchard K, Irwin T. Outcomes of a public health model approach to assisting women on TANF with substance abuse problems. Paper presented at: 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association.
15. Morgenstern J, Riordan A, Dephilippis D, et al. Specialized screening approaches can substantially increase the identification of substance abuse problems among welfare recipients. Available at: http://aspe.hhs. gov/hsp/njsardOO/screening-rn.htm. Accessed September 13, 2006.
16. Delva J, Neumark YD, Furr CD, Anthony JC. Drug use among welfare recipients in the United States. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2000;26:335-342.
17. Grant BF, Dawson DA. Alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence among welfare recipients. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1450-1454.
18. Jayakody R, Danziger S, Pollack H. Welfare reform, substance use, and mental health. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:623-651.
19. Danziger S, Seefeldt K. Barriers to employment and the "hard to serve": implications for services, sanctions, and timer limits. Focus. 2002;22:76-81.
20. Danziger S, Kalil A, Anderson N. Human capital, health and mental health of welfare recipients: cooccurrence and correlates. J Soc Issues. 2000;56:635.
21. Lown EA, Schmidt LA, Wiley J. Interpersonal violence among women seeking welfare: unraveling lives. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(8):1409-1415.
22. Montoya ID, Atkinson JS, Struse HM. A comparison of psychological barriers among welfare recipients: implications for drug treatment Subst Use Misuse. 2001;36:771-788.
23. Montoya ID, Atkinson JS. A synthesis of welfare reform policy and its impact on substance users. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2002;28:133-146.
24. Morgenstern J. Why are screening and treatment referral rates lower than expected in the New Jersey substance abuse initiative? Paper presented at: Improving the Identification and Referral Processes between the Welfare and Substance Abuse Systems; Washington, DC: December 30, 1999.
25. Morgenstern J, McCrady BS, Blanchard KA, McVeigh KH, Riordan A, Irwin TW. Barriers to employability among substance dependent and nonsubstance-affected women on federal welfare: implications for program design. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64:239-246.
26. Morgenstern J, Nakashian M, Woolis DD, Gibson FM Bloom NL, Kaulback BG. CASAWORKS for families: a new treatment model for substance-abusing parenting women on welfare. Eval Rev. 2003;27:583-596.
27. Schmidt L, Dohan D, Wiley J, Zabkiewicz D. Addiction and welfare dependency: interpreting the connection. Soc Problems. 2002;49:221-241.
28. Schmidt L, Weisner C, Wiley J. Substance abuse and the course of welfare dependency. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1616-1622.
29. Morgenstern J, Riordan A, Dephilippis D, et al. Research Notes. Specialized Screening Approaches Can Substantially Increase the Identification of Substance Abuse Problems Among Welfare Recipients. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.
30. Pollack H, Danziger S, Jayakody R, Seefeldt K. Substance use among welfare recipients: trends and policy responses. Soc Serv Rev. 2002;76:256-274.
31. Kaestner R. Drug use and AFDC participation: is there a connection? J Policy Analysis Manage. 1998;17:493-520.
32. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disororders, Revised Third Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1987.
33. Pollack HA, Danziger S, Jayakody R, Seefeldt KS. Drug testing welfare recipients-false positives, false negatives, unanticipated opportunities. Womens Health Issues. 2002:12:23-31.
34. Schmidt LA, McCarty D. Welfare reform and the changing landscape of substance abuse services for low-income women. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000;24:1298-1311.
35. Duncan G. Trends in the Wett-Being of America's Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1997.
36. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results From the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Rockville, Md: Department of Health and Human Services; 2003.
37. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
38. Warner LA, Kessler RC, Hughes M, Anthony JC, Nelson CB. Prevalence and correlates of drug use and dependence in the United States: Résulte from the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:219-229.
39. Pollack H, Danziger S, Seefeldt K, Jayakody R. Substance abuse among welfare recipients: trends and policy responses. Soc Serv Rev. 2002;76:256-274.
40. Pull CB, Saunders JB, Mavreas V, et al. Concordance between ICD-10 alcohol and drug use disorder criteria and diagnoses as measured by the AUDADIS-ADR, CIDI and SCAN: results of a cross-national study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;47:207-216.
41. Edin K, Lein L. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1997.
42. Magura S, Rang SY. Validity of self-reported drug use in high risk populations: a meta-analytical review. Subst Use Misuse. 1996;31:1131-1153.
43. The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates. Washington, DC: NaADR, tional Institute on Drug Abuse; 1997.
44. Midanik LT, Greenfield TK. Telephone versus in-person interviews for alcohol use: results of the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;72:209-214.
45. What America's Users Spend on Illicit Drugs, 1988-2000. Washington, DC: The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; 2001.
46. Fendrich M, Johnson TP, Wislar JS, Hubbell A, Spiehlter V. The utility of drug testing in epidemiological research: results from a general population survey. Addiction. 2004;99:197-208.
47. Pavetti L, Bloom D. State sanctions and time limits. In: Blank RM, Haskins R, eds. The New World of Welfare. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2001.
48. Eng MY, Schuckit MA Smith TL. A five-year prospective study of diagnostic orphans for alcohol use disorders. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64:227-234.
49. Morgenstern J, Riordan A, McCrady B, McVeigh K, Blanchard K, Irwin T. Intensive Case Management Improves Welfare Clients' Rates of Entry and Retention in Substance Abuse Treatment. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.
50. Kronebusch K. Medicaid for children: federal mandates, welfare reform, and policy backsliding. Health Aff(Millwood). 2001;20:97-111.
51. Kronebusch K. Children's Medicaid enrollment: the impacts of mandates, welfare reform, and policy delinking. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2001;26:1223-1260.