Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 827-848

  Brodkin, Evelyn Z ^a   Majmundar, Malay ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957744404     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mup046     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Adler, M. 2006. Fairness in context. Journal of Law and Society 33:615-638
2. Bane, Mary Jo, and David T. Ellwood. 1994. Welfare realities: From rhetoric to reform. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press.
3. Bendick, Marc, Jr., Abe Lavine, and Toby H. Campbell. 1978. The anatomy of AFDC errors. Washington,DC: Urban Institute.
4. Bennett, Susan. 1995. "No relief but upon the terms of coming into the house"-Controlled spaces,invisible disentitlements, and homelessness in an urban shelter system. Yale Law Journal 104:2157-2212
5. Bers, Alice. 2001. Reforming welfare after welfare reform. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 36:571-606.
6. Blank, Rebecca M., and Patricia Ruggles. 1996. When do women use AFDC and Food Stamps? Thedynamics of eligibility versus participation. Journal of Human Resources 31:57-89.
7. Blasi, Gary M. 1987-1988. Litigation strategies for addressing bureaucratic disentitlement. Review of Lawand Social Change 16:591-603.
8. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 1986. The false promise of administrative reform: Implementing quality control in welfare. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press.
9. 1997. Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration.Social Service Review 71:1-33.
10. 2006. Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:1-17.
11. Brodkin, Evelyn Z., Carolyn Fuqua, and Elaine Waxman. 2005. Accessing the safety net: Administrative barriers to public benefits in metropolitan Chicago. Chicago, IL: Public Benefits Hotline Research Project.
12. Bruinsma, Freek. 1980. The (non)-assertion of welfare rights: Hirschman's theory applied. Acta Politica15:357-383
13. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Children with single parents-How they fare. CENBR/97-1. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Commerce.
14. Cancian, Maria, Robert Haveman, Daniel Meyer, and Barbara Wolfe. 2000. Before and after TANF: The economic well-being of women leaving welfare. Special Report No. 77. Institute for Research on Poverty, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison.
15. Casey, Timothy J., and Mary R. Mannix. 1986. Quality control and the 'churning' crisis. Quality Controland Fiscal Sanctions in the Food Stamp Program: Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations and Nutrition of the House Committee On Agriculture andthe Subcommittee on Nutrition and Investigations of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,and Forestry, Serial No. 100-143 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. 1989. Quality control in public assistance: Victimizing the poor through one-sided accountability.Clearinghouse Review 22:1381-1389
17. Cherlin, Andrew J., Karen Bogen, James M. Quane, and Linda Burton. 2002. Operating within the rules:Welfare recipients' experiences with sanctions and case closings. Social Service Review 76:387-405.
18. Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2005. TANF work participation standards: Revising the caseload reduction credit. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
19. Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). 1999. The effects of welfare policy and the economic expansion on welfare caseloads: An update. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States.
20. Currie, Janet. 2004. The takeup of social benefits. NBER Discussion Paper #1103. Available at SSRN.com/abstract5527143.
21. Dehavenon, Anna Lou. 1989-1990. Charles Dickens meets Franz Kafka: The maladministration of New York City's public assistance programs. New York University Review of Law and Social Change17:231-254
22. Diller, Matthew. 2000. The revolution in welfare administration: Rules, discretion, and entrepreneurialgovernment. New York University Law Review 75:1121-1220
23. Etheridge, Marcus E., and Stephen L. Percy. 1993. A new kind of public policy encounters disappointing results: Implementing Learnfare in Wisconsin. Public Administration Review 53:340-347
24. Felstiner, William E F., Richard L. Abel, and Austin Sarat. 1980-1981. The emergence and transformation ofdisputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law and Society Review 15:631-654
25. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Reaching those in need: FoodStamp participation rates in 2005. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Service.
26. Grogger, Jeffrey. 2005. Markov forecasting methods for welfare caseloads. NBER Working Paper No.11682. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27. Grogger, Jeffrey, and Lynn A. Karoly. 2005. Welfare reform: Effects of a decade of change. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
28. Grogger, Jeffrey, Steven J. Haider, and Jacob Klerman. 2003. Why did the welfare rolls fall during the1990s? The importance of entry. American Economic Review 93:288-292
29. Handler, Joel F. 1986. The conditions of discretion: Autonomy, community, bureaucracy. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
30. Handler, Joel F., and Ellen J. Hollingsworth. 1971. The "deserving poor": A study of welfare administration.Chicago, IL: Markham.
31. Handler, Joel F., and Yeheskel Hasenfeld. 1991. The moral construction of poverty. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
32. Hasenfeld, Yehesekl, and Lisa E. Powell. 2004. The role of non-profit agencies in the provision of welfareto-work services. Administration in Social Work 28 (3/4): 91-110.
33. Haskins, Ron. 2006. The outcomes of 1996 welfare reform. Testimony before the U.S. Congress, HouseCommittee on Ways and Means. (Date: 7/19/2006). Available from: brookings.edu/testimony/2006(accessed January 15, 2009).
34. Illinois Institute for Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Springfield, and School of Social Work,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2000. Illinois study of former TANF clients, interimreport: Analysis of administrative data. Champaign, IL: Illinois Institute for Public Affairs.
35. Katz, Michael B. 1989. The undeserving poor: From the war on poverty to the war on welfare. New York:Pantheon.
36. Keiser, Lael R., Peter R. Mueser, and Seung-Whan Choi. 2004. Race, bureaucratic discretion, and the implementation of welfare reform. American Journal of Political Science 48:314-327
37. Lasswell, Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: McGraw Hill
38. Lens, Vicki, and Susan E. Vorsanger. 2005. Complaining after claiming: Fair hearings after welfarereform. Social Service Review 79:430-453
39. Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40. London, Rebecca A. 1996. The difference between divorced and never-married mothers' participation in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Journal of Family Issues 17:170-185
41. Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski. 2006. The changing role of welfare in the lives of low-income families with children. Occasional Paper Number 73. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
42. Lurie, Irene. 2006. At the front lines of the welfare system: A perspective on the decline in welfare caseloads. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
43. Majmundar, Malay. 2007. Bureaucratic proceduralism in the cash welfare and Food Stamp programs.PhD diss., Univ. of Chicago.
44. Mashaw, Jerry L. 1974. The management side of due process: Some theoretical and litigation notes on theassurance of accuracy, fairness and timeliness in the adjudication of social welfare claims. Cornell Law Review 59:772-824.
45. Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Michael Musheno. 2003. Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the frontlines of public service. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
46. McDonald, Catherine, and Greg Marston. 2002. Patterns of governance: The curious case of non-profit community services in Australia. Social Policy and Administration 36:376-391
47. McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
48. Mead, Lawrence M. 1986. Beyond entitlement: The social obligations of citizenship. New York: FreePress.
49. Mermin, Gordon, and C. Eugene Steuerle. 1997. The impact of TANF on state budgets. A-18. Washington,DC: Urban Institute.
50. Meyers, Marcia K., Bonnie Glaser, and Karin MacDonald. 1998. On the front lines of welfare delivery:Are workers implementing reforms? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17:1-22.
51. Miller, Gale. 1983. Holding clients accountable: The micro-politics of trouble in a work incentive program. Social Problems 31:139-151
52. Moffitt, Robert. 2003. The role of nonfinancial factors in exit and entry in the TANF program. The Journalof Human Resources 38:1121-1254
53. Morgen, Sandra. 2001. The agency of welfare workers: Negotiating devolution, privatization, and themeaning of self-sufficiency. American Anthropologist 103:747-761
54. Nathan, Richard P. 1983. The administrative presidency. New York: Wiley.
55. Nonet, Philippe. 1969. Administrative justice: Advocacy and change in a government agency. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
56. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Patrick G. Scott. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts andMeasures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12:553-580
57. Parrott, Sharon, and Arloc Sherman. 2006. TANF at 10: Program results are more mixed than of tenunderstood. Washington, DC: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
58. Pawasarat, John, Lois Quinn, and Frank Stetzer. 1992. Evaluation of the impact of Wisconsin's Learnfare experiment on the school attendance of teenagers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Milwaukee, WI: Employment and Training Institute, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
59. Price, David A. 1981. Study of AFDC cases discontinued by the Colorado monthly reporting system.Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
60. Riccucci, Norma M., Marcia K. Meyers, Irene Lurie, and Jun S. Han. 2004. The implementation of welfarereform policy: The role of public managers in front line practices. Public Administration Review64:438-448
61. Ridzi, Frank, and Andrew S. London. 2006. It's great when people don't even have their welfare casesopened: TANF diversion as process and lesson. Review of Policy Research 23:725-743
62. Sandfort, Jodi R. 2000. Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management fromthe front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10:729-756
63. Simon, William H. 1983. Legality, bureaucracy, and class in the welfare system. Yale Law Journal92:1198-1269
64. Soss, Joe. 2000. Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. Ann Arbor:Univ. of Michigan Press.
65. Soss, Joe, Sanford F. Schram, and Richard C. Fording. 2005. Sanctioning outcomes in the Florida TANFprogram: Devolution, privatization, and performance management. Paper prepared for delivery atthe Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago,Illinois, April 8, 2005.
66. Soss, Joe, Sanford F. Schram, Thomas P. Vartanian, and Erin O'Brien. 2001. Setting the terms of relief:Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science45:378-395
67. Super, David A. 2004. Offering an invisible hand: The rise of the personal choice model for rationing public benefits. Yale Law Journal 113:815-893
68. Urban Institute. 2006. A decade of welfare reform: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: Office of Public Affairs.
69. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U. S. DHHS). 1999. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of client sanctions. OEI-09-98-00290.Washington, DC: Office of Inspector General, Office of Evaluation and Inspections.
70. 2003a. Review of sanction policies and research studies. Washington, DC: Office of the AssistantSecretary for Planning and Evaluation.
71. 2003b. Study of the TANF application process. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
72. 2006. TANF seventh annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Office of Family Assistance.
73. U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). 1998. Welfare reform: Early fiscal effects of theTANF block grant. GAO/AIMD-98-137. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
74. 2000. Welfare reform: State sanction policies and number of families affected. GAO/HEHS-00-04. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
75. 2001. Welfare reform: Challenges in maintaining a federal-state fiscal partnership. GAO-01-828.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
76. 2002a. Welfare reform: States are using TANF flexibility to adapt work requirements and timelimits to meet state and local needs. GAO-02-501T. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
77. 2002b. Welfare reform: States provide TANF-funded services to many low-income families who do not receive cash assistance. GAO-02-564. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
78. Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. 2009. Race, Poverty, and Policy Implementation: Inside the Black Box of Racially Representative Bureaucracies. Paper presented at Symposium on Welfare States in Transition, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, May 15, 2009.
79. Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York:Basic Books.
80. Wilson, William J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
81. Zedlewski, Sheila R. 2002. Left behind or staying away? Eligible parents who remain off TANF. B-51.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
82. Zedlewski, Sheila R., Linda Giannarelli, Joyce Morton, and Laura Wheaton. 2002. Extreme poverty rising,existing government programs could do more. Series B, No.B-45. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.