This article examines the prevalence of potential barriers to employment using data from a longitudinal study of 1,075 Milwaukee County parents who applied for assistance from Wisconsin's TANF program in 1999. It also examines whether those potential barriers were related to their subsequent employment and earnings. We find that many of these TANF applicants faced significant and often multiple barriers to employment. Moreover, these potential barriers were associated with both a reduction in their likelihood of being employed and lower earnings when they worked. The implications of these findings for welfare policy and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcsG., & LoprestP (2003). A study of the District of Columbia's TANF caseload. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
2.
AcsG., & LoprestP (2001). Final synthesis report of the findings from ASPE's leavers grants. Report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/leavers99/synthesis02/index.htm.
3.
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. (2003). Study of the TANF application process. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/ifr/.
4.
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. (2006). Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, separate state program-maintenance of effort, Aid to Families with Dependent Children monthly caseload data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov//programs/ofa/caseload/monthlyindex.htm.
5.
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. (2007). TANF program policy questions and answers: Welfare waiver reforms. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/polquest/wrwavers.htm.
6.
BlankR. (2002). Evaluating welfare reform in the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 1105–1166.
7.
BoeselD., AlsalamN., & SmithT. (1998). Educational and labor market performance of GED recipients. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Library of Education.
CorbettT. (1995). Welfare reform n Wisconsin: The rhetoric and the reality. In D. Norris and L. Thompson The Politics of Welfare Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
10.
CourtneyM., & DworskyA (2006). Labor market outcomes: Findings from the Milwaukee TANF Applicant Study. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
11.
CovenM. (2005). An introduction to TANF. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
12.
CucitiP., AppelbaumL., & BadarC. (2003). Families on Colorado Works: Employment assets and liabilities. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver.
13.
DanizigerS., CorcoranM., DanzigerS., HeflinC., KalilA., LevineJ., (2000). Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. In CherryR. & RodgersW. (Eds.), Prosperity for all? The economic boom and African Americans. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
14.
DuntonN. (2003). Economic status and barriers to work. Missouri TANF leavers and TANF recipients: Findings from the 2001-2002 survey. Jefferson City: Missouri Department of Social Services.
15.
EdelhochM., LiuQ., RichardsonP., LaFeverS., & SchoenfeldG. (2004). Families on TANF in South Carolina: Employment assets and liabilities. Columbia: South Carolina Department of Social Services.
16.
EhrleJ., & MooreK (1999). Benchmarking child and family well-being measures in the NSAF (Methodology Report No. 6). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
17.
EnselW. M. (1986). Measuring depression: The CES-D scale. In LinN., DeanA., & EnselW. M. (Eds.), Social support, life events, and depression. Orlando, FL: Academic.
18.
GreenbergM., & SavnerS (1996a). A brief summary of key provisions of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant of H.R. 3734. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://www.clasp.org/pubs/TANF/clbskp.html.
19.
GreenbergM., & SavnerS (1996b). Waivers and the new welfare law: Initial approaches in state plans. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://epn.org/clasp/newwelf.html.
20.
HauanS., & DouglasS (2004). Potential employment liabilities among TANF recipients: A synthesis of data from six state TANF caseload studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
21.
KesslerR., AndrewsG., ColpeL., HiripweE., MroczekD., NormandS., (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence and trends in nonspecific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.
22.
KesslerR., AndrewsG., MroczekD., UstunB., & WittchenH. (1998). The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI-SF). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7, 171–185.
23.
KirbyG., FrakerT., PavettiL., & KovacM. (2003). Families on TANF in Illinois: Employment assets and liabilities. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Institute.
24.
LermanR. (2001a). Less educated single mothers achieved high wage and employment gains in the mid 1990s. Single Parents’ Earnings Monitor. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
25.
LermanR. (2001b). Jobs and wages up sharply for single moms, gains especially high after welfare reform. Single Parents’ Earnings Monitor. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
26.
LermanR. (2005). How did the 2001 recession affect single mothers? Single Parents’ Earnings Monitor. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
27.
LoprestP. (2001). How are families that left welfare doing? A comparison of early and recent welfare leavers. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
28.
LoprestP., & ZedlewskiS (1999). Current and former welfare recipients: How do they differ?Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
29.
OvwighoP., BornC., FerreroA., & PalazzoC. (2004). Life on welfare: The active caseload in Maryland. Baltimore: University of Maryland School of Social Work.
30.
ParrottS., SchottL., SweeneyE., BalderA., GanzgalssE., GreenbergM., (2006). Implementing the TANF changes in the Deficit Reduction Act: “Win-win” solutions for families and states. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
31.
ParrottS., SchottL., SweeneyE., BalderA., GanzgalssE., GreenbergM., (2007). Implementing the TANF changes in the Deficit Reduction Act: “Win-win” solutions for families and states (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
32.
PiliavinI., DworskyA., & CourtneyM. (2003). What happens to families under W-2 in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin? Report from wave 2 of the Milwaukee TANF applicant study. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
33.
PolitD., LondonA., & MartinezJ. (2001). The health of poor urban women: Findings from the Project on Devolution and Urban Change. Washington, DC: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.
34.
RadloffL., & LockeB (1986). The community mental health assessment survey and the CES-D scale. In WeissmanM., MyersJ., & RossC. (Eds.), Community surveys of psychiatric disorders (pp. 177–189). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
35.
RangarajanA., & WoodR (1999). How Work First New Jersey clients are faring under welfare reform: An early look. Princeton, NJ: Mathematic Policy Research.
36.
RobertsR. E., & VernonS.W. (1983). The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale: Its use in a community sample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 41–46.
37.
StrausM. A., & GellesR. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
38.
SuperD., ParrottS., SteinmetzS., & MannC. (1996). The new welfare law. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://www.cbpp.org/WECNF813.HTM.
39.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Indicators of welfare dependence: Annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators05/ch2.htm#tb28b.
40.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). TANF leavers, applicants, and caseload studies: Reports on applicants. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/leavers99/rpts-apps.htm.
41.
WareJ. E., SnowK. K., KosinskiM., & GardekB. (1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Heath Institute, New England Medical Center.
42.
WareJ. E., KosinskiM., & KellerS. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.
43.
ZedlewskiS. (1999). Work-related activities and limitations of current welfare recipients. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
44.
ZedlewskiS. (2003). Work and barriers to work among welfare recipients in 2002. Snapshots of America's Families 3 (No. 3). Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
45.
ZedlewskiS., & AldersonD (2001a). Before and after reform: How have families on welfare changed?Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
46.
ZedlewskiS., & AldersonD (2001b). Do families on welfare in the post-TANF era differ from their pre-TANF counterparts? (Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper 01-03). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
