View the full project profile

Project Description

Ohio Works First, in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio includes time limits, sanctions, self-sufficiency contracts, work requirements, teen parent provisions, income disregards, and transitional services. RESET in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania program includes job search, work requirements, minor parent provisions, sanctions, time limits, written agreements, income disregards, and transitional services. CALWORKS in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), California includes job search, work requirements, teen parent provisions, income disregards, time limits, written agreements, sanctions, and transitional services. WAGES in Miami-Dade County (Miami), Florida program includes time limits, sanctions, work requirements, teen parent provisions, income disregards, job search, and transitional services.

Project duration: Jan 1997 - Aug 2005

Sites studied include Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio
Philadelphia County (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania
Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), California
Miami-Dade County (Miami), Florida

Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied

All food stamp and TANF recipients in the counties being studied; selected institutions that serve low-income populations in three "target" neighborhoods.

Recent Findings in Brief

08/31/05: Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Welfare Reform in Los Angeles: Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods

Final Implementation Findings:

• Los Angeles County's caseload is large and diverse.
• The CalWORKs program added time limits and rigorous participation requirements.
• CalWORKs requirements are softened by protections for children.
• California's cash grants and financial work incentives are comparatively generous.
• Participation in the GAIN program begins immediately.

• Caseloads were declining in the mid-1990s.
• Both participation and sanctioning increased.
• CalWORKs appears to have encouraged long-term recipients in Los Angeles to exit welfare more quickly.
• Recipients in both poor and nonpoor neighborhoods increasingly got jobs.
• The circumstances of recipients who took part in a longitudinal survey generally improved over time.
• Despite improvements, most women in the survey remained poor.
• Los Angeles’s new welfare policies were comparatively lenient.
• Welfare exits accelerated in all Urban Change sites.
• Caseload declines were smallest in Los Angeles.
• Across the four sites, similarities were more prominent than differences.

Contact