Program operations: The study will track the implementation and the impact of welfare reform programs.

1) What are the levels of family well-being and hardship? How do they change as welfare reforms are implemented?

2) How do families "package" their external supports? How do strategies differ across families and change over time?

3) How adequate are families' external supports? Will welfare changes result in improvements or deteriorations in these supports?

4) What are the behavioral responses to policy changes? What are the consequences of those behavioral changes?

5) Who gains and who loses under welfare reform?

6) How will devolution and welfare reform affect the local organization of services? How will the change affect the institutional capacity of the public and private sectors?

“One in seven New York families has assets of more than $100,000; more than four in ten have zero assets or even a negative self worth.”

“Three of four New York families are headed by an adult in good to excellent health; one in twenty is headed by an adult in poor health.”

“Two of ten families are headed by an adult with a college or graduate degree; three of ten are headed by a high school dropout.”

“One in twenty families has an income at least 10 times greater than the poverty line; nearly three of ten families have incomes below poverty.”

“The proportion of New York adults with college or graduate degrees is about the national average while the proportion who are high school dropouts is one and one-half times the national average.”

“The proportion of New Yorkers with assets over $100,000 is lower than the national average while the proportion with no or negative assets is twice the national average.”

“The proportion of New Yorkers with incomes ten times the poverty level us about the national average while the proportion with incomes below the poverty line is almost twice the national average.”

“The proportion of New York families who go hungry is more than twice the national average, and the proportion living on overcrowded housing is three times the national average.”

“More than three out of every ten White New Yorkers have at least a college degree, in comparison to fewer than one in ten lack or Hispanic New Yorkers.”

“About three of every ten White New York families have no financial assets, in comparison to four of ten Black families and seven of ten Hispanic families.”

“More than seven out of every ten White New Yorkers rate police protection in the city as good, in comparison to fewer than five of every ten Black New Yorkers.”

“Among Hispanic families, 37 percent of immigrant could not count on borrowing even $100 from family or friends, compared to 24 percent of non-immigrants.”

“Among White families, 30 percent of immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of non-immigrants.”

“Among Black families, 20 percent of immigrants live in overcrowded housing compared to 14 percent of non-immigrants.”

“In Black families, 88 percent of children in immigrant families are at or above grade level, compared to 74 percent of those in families headed by a U.S.-born parent.”

“In Hispanic families, 56 percent of immigrant parents report no serious adjustment problems for their child, compared to only 30 percent of immigrants.”

“Among Hispanic parents, 77 percent of immigrants agree with the statement that their children are getting a good education, in comparison to 57 percent of non-immigrants.”

“Among Black New Yorkers, 40 percent of immigrants think that the city has become a better place to live in recent years, in comparison to 16 percent of non-immigrants.”

“The odds that a family cannot get an emergency loan of $100 from family or friends are over 10 times greater for poor families than for affluent families.”

“The odds that a child is disabled are twice as high, and the odds that he or she is behind in school are more than six times greater, in poor versus affluent families.”

“The odds that New Yorkers consider their neighborhood unsafe are nearly four times greater for poor families than for their affluent counterparts.”

“The odds that a child lacks health insurance and doesn’t go to preschool or day care are four times greater if he or she lives in a poor rather than affluent family.”

“Among families headed by young adults, 46 percent of those with children are headed by high school dropouts, compared to 13 percent of those without children.”

“Among families headed by an adult over 30 years of age, 31 percent of those with children are poor, compared to 21 percent of those without children.”

“Among families headed by an adult under 30 years of age, over half of those with children live in bad neighborhoods, compared to just over one-quarter of those without children.”

“The odds that a child is behind a grade level or in special education are nearly three times greater if he or she is in a single parent family.”

“The odds that a child has adjustment problems are almost three times greater among children in single parent families.”

“The odds that a parent rates his or her child’s school as unsafe or poor in quality are twice as high for single parents.”

• In this two-year period, life improved in the city on many dimensions. In comparison to 1997, more families had some financial assets and at least moderate affluence, more considered their neighborhoods to be good and safe, fewer were crime victims, and more were satisfied with life in the city and with city services in 1999. But there was little improvement on indicators of distress and disadvantage. The same proportion of families were poor and had zero or negative assets in both years. The proportion of families living in poor quality and overcrowded housing did not change. And the proportion experiencing economic hardship may have grown.
• Disparities between the "haves" and the "have nots" in the city remained wide in 1999. Families who were poor, who were headed by an immigrant adult, or who had children, continued to lag their more advantaged counterparts in financial and economic resources, living conditions, and satisfaction with life in the city. Between 1997 and 1999, inequality grew between the "haves" and the "have nots" of the city on several dimensions. The gap between the rich and poor narrowed on some important dimensions, such as crime and neighborhood satisfaction, while it grew wider on indicators of wealth, financial hardship and satisfaction with the city. The gap between immigrants and non-immigrants grew wider on nearly all dimensions of economic and financial well-being, quality of life, and satisfaction. The gap between families with and without children also grew wider on most social indicators.