To protect the situation of children and their families living in big cities during a period of major policy change.

Program operations: The areas of attention will include the major child and family programs affected by Congressional actions: AFDC, food stamps, child health, child care, child welfare, etc.

To identify and analyze initial responses to the new federal legislation, waivers, regulations, and funding provisions that take advantage of new flexibilities and related opportunities so as to improve big city child and family policies and programs.

To identify and analyze those aspects of the new federal legislation, regulations, and funding provisions that pose serious consequences for families and children, as well as implementation, operational, and budgetary problems for city governments, the voluntary sector, and community groups- and to assess proposed administrative, judicial, legislative, and budgetary remedies.

To make available to cities, voluntary agencies, community groups, and advocacy groups documented information about options and strategies which can be of practical value. Content, form, and place of publication will be guided by these considerations.

• Big cities are at a serious disadvantage under federal welfare reform and the resulting new, unbalanced federalism.
• The study found that, of the six big cities surveyed, no two were alike in coping with the demands of the new federal policies and revised programs. In every case, the state defined a city’s mission and its taxing capacities. Some cities had an impact on state actions and implementation plans; others did not. Where city and county concerns were ignored by states, efforts at job creation, child care provision, and mobilization of community supports faced major blockage or resource lacks.
• Unless states deliberately act with the interests of big cities in mind and avoid passing on unfunded mandates, welfare reform will have reinforced a system that may breed further hopelessness. Although the federal legislation has been justified as providing a route for the welfare-poor to autonomy, the reality may be the reverse.

• protections for cities in terms of how states do or do not mandate responsibilities for which the cities are not supplied funding streams;
• mandated city inclusion in state welfare planning when federal funds are involved;
a fair sharing of child care resources and funds for job creation when federal funds are involved, and
• mandated state sharing of data about caseloads, clients, and programs for cities when service delivery is state controlled.