Welfare reform is weakening the social and institutional fabric of neighborhoods with relatively high levels of poverty and is, therefore, antiurban and antineighborhood policy. This article is based on an in-depth study of three Massachusetts communities that finds that welfare reform is increasing regulatory and service demand pressures in inner-city neighborhoods, thereby altering the mission, organizational capacities, and planning activities of community-based organizations. These findings support recent research that examines the problematic connections between welfare reform and race, neighborhood development, and civic participation. The emerging lesson is that the building of civic consciousness and the strengthening of institutional capacities to pursue community and economic development are ignored in the push of welfare reforms to change individual behavior. Neighborhood revitalization initiatives, as well as the call for increasing citizen participation and self-help strategies, are similarly being weakened or ignored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Auletta, Ken.1983. The Underclass. New York: Random House.
2.
Bailey, Darlyne and Kelly McNally Koney .1996. Inter-organizational Community-Based Collaboratives: A Strategic Response to Shape the Social Work Agenda. Social Work41(6): 602-11.
3.
Banfield, Edward C.1973. The Unheavenly City Revisited. Boston : Little, Brown.
4.
Brown, Michael K.1999. Race, Money, and the American Welfare State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
Bratt, Rachel G. and Langley C. Keyes , with Rhae Parkese, Kim Phinney, and Diana Markel.1997. New Perspectives on Self-Sufficiency: Strategies for Nonprofit Housing Organizations . Medford, MA: Tufts University and the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy.
6.
Chicago Urban League and the Center for Urban Economic Development. 2000. Living with Welfare Reform: A Survey of Low Income Families in Illinois. Chicago: Chicago Urban League and the Center for Urban Economic Development.
7.
Coulton, Claudia J.1996. Poverty, Work, and Community: A Research Agenda for an Era of Diminishing Federal Responsibility. Social Work41(5):509-19.
8.
Delgado, Melvin.1999. Social Work Practice in Nontraditional Urban Settings . New York: Oxford University Press .
9.
Dodson, Lisa, Pamela Joshi, and Davida McDonald .1998. Welfare in Transition: Consequences for Women, Families, and Communities. Cambridge, MA: Radcliffe Public Policy Institute.
10.
Fields, Jason M. and Kristin E. Smith .1998. Poverty and Family Structure, and Child Well-Being: Indicators from the SIPP. Population Division Working Paper, no. 23, Apr. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division.
11.
Fitzgerald, John M.1995. Local Labor Markets and Local Area Effects on Welfare Duration. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management14(1):43-67.
12.
Gooden, Susan.1998. All Things Not Being Equal: Differences in Caseworker Support Toward Black and White Clients. Harvard Journal of African AmericanPublic Policy4.
13.
Gross, June.2000. Pressure from All Sides: Living Through the Conflicting Realities of Poverty. Working Families Online Roundtable (30 Mar. 2000). Available at www.igc.org/handsnet/whitepaper2.html .
14.
Guest, Avery M. and Susan K. Wierzbicki .1999. Social Ties at the Neighborhood Level: Two Decades of GSS Evidence. Urban Affairs Review35(1):92-111.
15.
Halpern, Robert.1995. Rebuilding the Inner City: A History of Neighborhood Initiatives to Address Poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
Hamilton, Charles V. and Dona C. Hamilton .1997. The Dual Agenda: Race and Social Welfare Policies of Civil Rights Organizations. New York: Columbia University Press.
17.
Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray.1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
18.
Jennings, James.1994. Understanding the Nature of Poverty in Urban America . Westport, CT: Praeger.
19.
Keyes, Langley C.1990. The Shifting Focus of Neighborhood Groups: The Massachusetts Experience. In The Future of National Urban Policy , ed. Marshall Kaplan and Franklin James.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
20.
Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton .1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996. U.S. Public Law 104-193. 104th Cong., 22 Aug. 1996.
22.
Richman, Harold A., Robert J. Chaskin, and Renae Ogletree.1992. The Ford Foundation's Neighborhood and Family Initiative: Toward a Model of Comprehensive Neighborhood-Based Development . Chicago: University of Chicago , Chapin Hall Center for Children.
23.
Schwartz, Alex F. and Avis C. Vidal.1999. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Impact of Federal and State Policy Changes in Housing in New York City. In Housing and Community Development in New York City, ed. Michael H. Schill.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
24.
Stone, Clarence N.1999. Poverty and the Continuing Campaign for Urban Social Reform . Urban Affairs Review34(6):843-56.
25.
Vartanian, Thomas P.1997. Neighborhood Effects on AFDC Exits: Examining Social Isolation, Relative Deprivation, and Epidemic Theories. Social Science Review71(4):548-74.
26.
Withorn, Ann and Pamela Jons.1999. Worrying About Welfare Reform: Community-Based Agencies Respond. Unpublished paper, Academic Working Group on Poverty, University of MassachusettsBoston.
27.
Wolman, Hal.1996. Welfare to Work: The Need to Take Place Differences intoAccount. Technical Analysis Paper, no. 45. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
