FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1496289311> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1496289311 abstract "The use of public shelters in Philadelphia was examined both before and after the implementation of Act 35, Pennsylvania’s response to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Univariate interrupted time-series analyses were conducted to determine if trends in shelter utilization (the number of families admitted, by family size, by race, by age of household head, by income, by disability indicator, and by average length of stay) changed significantly after March 1997, the month in which Act 35 was implemented, or after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of implementation. Results indicate that family size and household head age increased after the implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, although not at consistent lags. A small negative effect on self-reported substance abuse and a small positive effect on the proportion of household heads with a disability were found, but at inconsistent lags. As is the case with most evaluations of welfare reform, it is difficult to separate the effects of welfare reform and Philadelphia’s economy during the study period. To test the effect of Act 35’s implementation while controlling for economic factors, a multivariate regression analysis of family shelter admissions was conducted along with variables for the unemployment rate and for the consumer price index for the cost of rental housing. This analysis revealed a significant positive effect of unemployment and housing costs on public shelter admissions among families and no effect of the implementation of welfare reform. The Impact of Welfare Reform on Public Shelter Utilization in Philadelphia Cityscape 173 Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research • Volume 6, Number 2 • 2003 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research The Impact of Welfare Reform on Public Shelter Utilization in Philadelphia: A Time-Series Analysis Sction 3— om eess am iies Culhane, Poulin, Hoyt, and Metraux 174 Cityscape Background Welfare Reform in Philadelphia The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which was passed by Congress in August 1996, replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), thereby eliminating the federal government’s guarantee of assistance to dependent children and implementing a program that emphasized the employment of parents with dependent children. PRWORA also changed the distribution of funds from an unlimited match of state expenditures for AFDC to block grants that require states to contribute a specified portion of TANF expenditures. Although this new method gives states more flexibility in how they spend federal funds, PRWORA requires states to ensure that a stipulated percentage of the TANF caseload is working, to enforce a 2-year limit on the amount of time allowed for finding work, and to enforce a 5-year lifetime limit on the receipt of TANF funds. States are allowed to exempt a maximum of 20 percent of their TANF caseload from the 5-year limit. Within this framework, in March 1997 Pennsylvania passed a welfare reform law, Act 35, which specified how it would implement PRWORA. Act 35 requires every person enrolled in TANF to complete an “agreement of mutual responsibility” (AMR) that commits them to look diligently for employment. As soon as the AMR is completed, the enrollee must begin an 8-month job search and, in compliance with PRWORA, be engaged in an “approved work activity” by the end of 2 years. After 2 years of TANF receipt, the enrollee must be working at least 20 hours a week, and education or training cannot be included as part of these 20 hours. All persons are subject to PRWORA’s 5year lifetime limit on TANF receipt, even if a person leaves the TANF caseload and later returns. Act 35 exempts caretakers who are not receiving TANF, which usually includes grandparents or other caretakers with their own income, from the work requirements. Mothers with children under 1 year of age or with children under 6 who cannot find childcare are also exempt, as are caretakers who are unable to work because of physical or mental handicaps. Before the implementation of Act 35, sanctions applied only to the head of household; other members of the household could continue to receive welfare benefits. If the TANF requirements are not met, Act 35 outlines sanctions that may ultimately result in the denial of benefits to an entire household. The first violation that occurs within the first 24 months of TANF receipt may result in the suspension of benefits for 30 days, and the second violation may result in a 60-day suspension. A third violation that occurs within the first 24 months of TANF receipt may result in the permanent loss of benefits for the entire household. However, through the end of 2001, only seven households in Philadelphia County had been permanently expelled from the TANF program since the implementation of Act 35. Thus any studies of the effects of welfare reform in Philadelphia are unlikely to find effects directly associated with the imposition of time limits and sanctions. However, indirect, aggregate effects associated with declining TANF participation rates, such as increases in requests for emergency shelter, may be observable and are tested here. Welfare Reform and Homelessness Few studies have measured the effect of welfare reform on homelessness. Berger and Tremblay (1999) suggest that persons receiving TANF are especially vulnerable to homelessness because an estimated 80 percent of them are not receiving housing assistance. Berger and Tremblay also cite a study by Salomon, Bassuk, and Brooks (1996) that found that women in a Massachusetts shelter were more likely to receive AFDC than low-income women who were housed, which suggests that the shelter residents are more likely to be affected by welfare reform. On the basis of the experience of states that had experimented with work requirements before the passage of PRWORA, Berger and Tremblay expected TANF terminations to be widespread, although that expectation has not been realized in Pennsylvania. Some localities have observed increases in the number of people sheltered after the implementation of PRWORA. The University of Massachusetts at Boston research team (Friedman et al., 2001) reports that the number of persons using shelters in Massachusetts, which has enforced a 2-year time limit, increased from 2,900 to 4,300 between 1995 and 2000; the authors attribute that increase to the effects of welfare reform. In Milwaukee, where sanctions have also been applied and reductions in TANF benefits imposed, shelter providers also reported an increase in demand (Huston, 1999). Conversely, in its 2000 annual survey of 25 cities throughout the United States, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (2000) did not find an exceptional increase in the demand for emergency shelter after the passage of PRWORA in 1996. However, in each of these cases, changes in shelter demand were assessed based on the impressions or reports of shelter providers and public officials, not analyses of actual client utilization data. Beyond the expectation that the number of families seeking shelter would rise after welfare reform, there has been little speculation about the impact of welfare reform on the shelter utilization patterns of families. Previous research found, however, that characteristics of individuals and families are associated with entry, exit, and stay patterns (Culhane and Kuhn, 1998; Wong, 1997; and Wong, Culhane, and Kuhn, 1997). Those same characteristics were included here to explore whether the shelter caseload changes that may occur as a result of welfare reform were associated with changes in the characteristics of sheltered households in the aggregate. There are at least four reasons why the impact of welfare reform on homelessness has not been consistently measured—or has been difficult to interpret even when measured. First, most cities and states do not have information systems that track changes in demand for emergency shelter services over time. Second, most local and national estimates of homelessness are based on shelter census figures, which vary by locality for various reasons independent of the demand for services, including capacity limitations and shelter policies that govern eligibility and length of stay (LOS). Third, welfare changes may indirectly affect the risk for homelessness as much if not more than directly affecting that risk, and indirect effects are inherently more difficult to measure. For example, one possibility is that, to the degree that caseloads decline and people who previously would have applied for welfare no longer do so (either due to perceived disincentives for receipt or perceived ineligibility), more such households may be at risk of homelessness. Such effects are infrequently measured in welfare reform research, because most evaluations track cohorts of recipients, not nonrecipients. The Impact of Welfare Reform on Public Shelter Utilization in Philadelphia" @default.
• W1496289311 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1496289311 creator A5003086730 @default.
• W1496289311 creator A5066814314 @default.
• W1496289311 creator A5090505233 @default.
• W1496289311 creator A5091347388 @default.
• W1496289311 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W1496289311 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1496289311 title "A Study of the Impacts of Welfare Reform in Philadelphia: Public Shelter Utilization, Demand for Public Housing Programs, and Public Housing Program Recipient Outcomes" @default.
• W1496289311 cites W1981618250 @default.
• W1496289311 cites W2088249878 @default.
• W1496289311 cites W2140793008 @default.
• W1496289311 cites W51500532 @default.
• W1496289311 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1496289311 type Work @default.
• W1496289311 sameAs 1496289311 @default.
• W1496289311 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1496289311 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1496289311 hasAuthorship W1496289311A5003086730 @default.
• W1496289311 hasAuthorship W1496289311A5066814314 @default.
• W1496289311 hasAuthorship W1496289311A5090505233 @default.
• W1496289311 hasAuthorship W1496289311A5091347388 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C100001284 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C100243477 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C2776390805 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C2777022163 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C2777663346 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C2992152759 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C2994509585 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConcept C533584247 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C100001284 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C100243477 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C144133560 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C162324750 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C17744445 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C199539241 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C2776390805 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C2777022163 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C2777663346 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C2992152759 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C2994509585 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C3116431 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C34447519 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C50522688 @default.
• W1496289311 hasConceptScore W1496289311C533584247 @default.
• W1496289311 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1496289311 hasLocation W14962893111 @default.
• W1496289311 hasOpenAccess W1496289311 @default.
• W1496289311 hasPrimaryLocation W14962893111 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W107865400 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W118338768 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W1548299866 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2050285752 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2051851993 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2067096456 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2068153748 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2127529773 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2135490841 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2137213673 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2142218971 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2172678608 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2379932834 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2531846855 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2893291246 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W3160612734 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W798907168 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2292431822 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W2302241915 @default.
• W1496289311 hasRelatedWork W235839234 @default.
• W1496289311 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W1496289311 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1496289311 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1496289311 magId "1496289311" @default.
• W1496289311 workType "article" @default.