Provision of social services that can help welfare recipients overcome barriers to employment has become an important challenge for welfare-to-work programs, yet there is relatively little understanding of how spatial proximity to social services varies across welfare recipients in urban America. In this study, the authors examine the spatial proximity of welfare recipients in the three-county Detroit metropolitan area to mental health and substance abuse service providers. They find that spatial proximity to mental health services varies by geography and race among welfare recipients in Detroit, with evidence indicating that spatial trends in service accessibility are shifting in favor of suburban areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allard, S. W. 2002. The urban geography of welfare reform: Spatial patterns of caseload dynamics in Detroit. Social Science Quarterly83 (4): 1044-1062.
2.
Allard, S. W., and S. Danziger. 2003. Proximity and opportunity: How residence and race affect welfare recipients. Housing Policy Debate13 (4).
3.
Allard, S. W., R. M. Tolman, and D. Rosen. Forthcoming. Proximity to service providers and service utilization among welfare recipients: The interaction of place and race. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Fall, 22 (4).
4.
Allen, K., and M. Kirby. 2000. Unfinished business: Why cities matter to welfare reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
5.
Chandler, D., and J. Meisel. 2000. The prevalence of mental health, alcohol and other drugs, and domestic violence issues among CalWorks participants in Kern and Stanislaus Counties. Retrieved from http://www.cimh.org/calworks
6.
Danziger, S., M. Corcoran, S. Danziger, C. Heflin, A. Kalil, J. Levine, D. Rosen, K. Seefeldt, K. Siefert, and R. Tolman. 2000. Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. In The impact of tight labor markets on black employment problems, edited by R. Cherry and W. Rodgers, 245-278. New York: Russell Sage.
7.
Danziger, S. K., and K. S. Seefeldt. 2002. Barriers to employment and the “hard to serve”: Implications for services, sanctions, and time limits. Focus22 (1): 76-81.
8.
Dooley, D., and J. Prause. 2002. Mental health and welfare transitions: Depression and alcohol abuse in AFDC women. American Journal of Community Psychology30 (6): 787-813.
9.
Grant, B. F., and D. Dawson. 1996. Alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence among welfare recipients. American Journal of Public Health86 (10): 1450-1454.
10.
Holzer, H. J., and M. A. Stoll. 2001. Meeting the demand: Hiring patterns of welfare recipients in four metropolitan areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
11.
Jayakody, R., S. Danziger, and H. Pollack. 2000. Welfare reform, substance abuse, and mental health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law25 (4): 623-651.
12.
Jayakody, R., and D. Stauffer. 2000. Mental health problems among single mothers: Implications for work and welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues56:617-634.
13.
Kessler, R. C., S. Y. Zhao, S. J. Katz, A. C. Kouzis, R. G. Frank, M. Edlund, and P. Leaf. 1999. Past-year use of outpatient services for psychiatric problems in the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Psychiatry156 (1): 115-123.
14.
Lennon, M. C., J. Blome, and K. English. 2001. Depression and low-income women: Challenges for TANF and welfare-to-work policies and programs. Retrieved from http://www.researchforum.org
15.
Lutenbacher, M. 2000. Perceptions of health status and the relationship with abuse history and mental health in low-income single mothers. Journal of Family Nursing6 (4): 320-340.
16.
Moore, K. A., M. J. Zaslow, M. J. Coiro, S. M. Miller, and E. B. Magenheim. 1995. The JOBS evaluation: How well are they faring? AFDC families with preschool-aged children in Atlanta at the outset of the JOBS evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
17.
Polit, D. F., A. S. London, and J. M. Martinez. 2001. The health of poor urban women. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
18.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2002. Distance to substance abuse treatment facilities among those with alcohol dependence or abuse. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/2k2/distance/distance.pdf
19.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. Census 2000 summary file (SF 1) demographic data. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
20.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. 2002. State strategies for working with hard-to-employ TANF recipients. Retrieved from http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-00-00630.pdf
21.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Welfare reform: Moving hard-to-employ recipients into the workforce. GAO-01-368. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
22.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. 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.
23.
Wynn, J. R. 1995. Enhancing social services for children, youth, and families. Public Welfare, Fall, 12-23.
