Working Poor Families Jordan Institute for Families School of Social Work University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill August 2008 Families are Important Definitions and Prevalence Poor and working in America. have noted that simply earning more than the FPL does not protect vulnerable Families are not cast in molds. families from experiencing the impact of By Laurie Selz Campbell poverty in their day to day lives (for Families can be single parents Contrary to commonly held assumptions, example, Boushey, Brocht, Gundersen, & raising children, gay or lesbian to be poor in America does not mean to Bernstein, 2001; Brooks, 2007; Pearce, partners, a grandmother raising be unemployed. The Bureau of Labor 2007). The Urban Institute (2008) has Statistics (2007) reported that, in 2005, asserted that, even with incomes up to a grandchild, or a group of 37 million people (12.6% of the US pop- 200% of the FPL, families are often are friends living together. By choice ulation) lived below the Federal Poverty or by chance, families are the Level (FPL). Of these, 7.7 million were classified as “working poor,” an bonds we all form. Simple catego- increase of .7 percent from 2000. The ries cannot house complex networks Bureau of Labor Statistics defines of relationships. Families have many “working poor” as having spent a majority of the past year in the labor variables. Using research literature, force, but still living below the FPL. FamilyTrends describes different Significantly, nearly 60% of working family forms and identifies character- poor persons were employed full-time. Working poor persons tended to have istics common to certain family completed fewer years of schooling types. Because to really understand than working non-poor persons. In the needs of families—to shape poli- addition, African American and Hispanic persons were among the ranks cy and inform practice—we must of the working poor at a rate approxi- begin by understanding families mately twice that of White persons themselves. (10.5% vs. 4.7%). In addition, women were among the working poor at a high- FamilyTrends Briefs er rate than men (6.1% vs. 4.8%). About this Series Working poor families. FamilyTrends Briefs is a series designed The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported to inform practitioners, policy makers, as well on families with children, and the picture is even more disturbing. In unable to meet basic needs, and have no and researchers about the varied family 2005, for families with at least one work- safety net that could sustain them in the structures that exist today. Each brief ing parent, about 3.6 million (9.5% of all event of job loss or health crisis. The focuses on a specific family form by working families with children) were Economic Policy Institute (2002) com- highlighting strengths, vulnerabilities, among the ranks of the working poor. puted “Basic Needs Budgets” for fami- and suggestions for practice and policy. Single-parent families were significantly lies, and found that, depending on geo- References are provided for those wish- more likely than two-parent families to graphical area, families needed between ing to seek further information. be among the working poor, particularly 175% and 330% of the FPL to subsist in The series has been researched, writ- families headed by a single mother. Two a way that ensures their safety and health ten and edited by the Jordan Institute for parent families were among the working (the budget included food, housing, Families at the School of Social Work at poor at a rate of 5.5%, with single fathers transportation, healthcare, taxes, child- The University of North Carolina at and single mothers at 12.4% and 22.6%, care, and other basic living expenses, Chapel Hill. Although reference is made respectively. such as telephone, clothing, and school to North Carolina, FamilyTrends Briefs It is important to note that the above supplies for children). contains information universal in appeal figures are widely considered underesti- Using 200% FPL as a more realistic and application. mates of the gravity of the situation for indicator of poverty, researchers at the Additional FamilyTrends Briefs are working poor families in our country. Annie E. Casey Foundation estimated available at <www.familytrends.org>. Numerous researchers and economists that, rather than the 3.6 million (9.5%) cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, above, as many as 9.2 Similarly, poverty has been shown to profoundly affect chil- million (27.4%) of working families in the United States are dren. Vandivere, O’Hare, Atienza, and Rivers (2007), reporting among the working poor (Waldron, Roberts, & Reamer, data from over 102,000 families, found that, compared to chil- 2004). About half of working poor families are headed by dren who were not living in poverty, poor children were more married parents, 40% by single mothers, and 10% by single likely to: fathers. Dissatisfaction with the FPL has spawned the Living Wage Movement (Brooks, 2007), a rapidly growing grassroots Live in single parent families; effort focused on states and municipalities, and advocating for Live with parents with mental health concerns; legislation which ensures hourly wage rates that close the gap Live in households without phone, transportation, and other between the Federal Minimum Wage and a more realistic self- basic needs; sufficiency wage. Live in unsafe neighborhoods with inadequate or lower-quali- ty resources; North Carolina Be disconnected from their communities, not participating in In addition to nation-wide statistics described above, the Annie activities, teams, or clubs; E. Casey has compiled state-level statistics on working poor Be in poor health, including obesity and other activity-limit- families. These ing conditions; and The Bureau of Labor Statistics statistics2003, that, in indicate Experience emotional, behavioral, and learning challenges (depression, anxiety, social challenges, learning disabilities or North Carolina developmental delays). defines “working poor” as ranked 38th having spent a majority of the among the states in percentage of In addition, children living in poverty have been found to be less likely to receive supports that might help them to address past year in the labor force, working families below 200% of these challenges (Iversen & Armstrong, 2007; Newman & Chin, 2003; Sobolewski & Amato, 2005). Gyamfi (2004) found that but still living below the FPL. the FPL, with about one-third poor children with serious emotional or behavioral issues received fewer services overall, and a smaller range of services, (32.4%) of fami- than did non-poor children. Families in poverty are often forced lies, and 45% of to live in neighborhoods lacking in resources such as adequate children, fitting this description. Consistent with national trends schools, recreational facilities, and health care services described above, minority North Carolina families are among (Sobolewski & the working poor at about twice the rate of White families Amato, 2005). (49% and 24%, respectively). It is noteworthy that North Perhaps because of Carolina ranked 42nd among the states in the percentage of such resource pov- minority working families among the working poor. erty, combined with financial hardship, Strengths and Challenges health and mental The overall impact of poverty on adults and children. health problems, The literature on the effects of poverty is abundant, suggesting work stressors and that poverty in a family is not only a risk factor in itself, but conflicts, and the that it can also worsen the impact of other challenges and diffi- stringent demands culties. Working poor adults experience a complex and wide- of compliance with ranging set of challenges (Siegel & Abbott, 2007). These TANF regulations, include: parents may have considerable diffi- Housing and food insecurity, or homelessness culties in meeting Child care problems (availability and/or quality) their children’s edu- Transportation problems (geographical distance from work- cational needs. place, availability of public or private transportation) These same fac- Low levels of educational attainment, limited English skills tors may increase children’s vulnerability to abuse and neglect. Lack of job skills, especially those that could lead to advance- Poor children face continuing risk factors, including family and ment community violence, neglect, substance abuse, and health prob- Substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence chal- lems (Drake & Pandey, 1996). While child abuse and neglect lenges cut across all socioeconomic levels, it is more likely to occur in Complex family needs (larger families, younger children, pres- poor families experiencing multiple and complex stressors ence of a disabled relative who needs care) (Berger, 2005; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). The significant overlap between TANF and child welfare populations has been In addition, working poor persons often experience chal- documented (Courtney, Dworsky, Piliavin, & Zinn, 2005; lenging workplace conditions, including stressful relations with Romero, Chavkin, & Wise, 2000), suggesting the need for coworkers, inability to advance, unsafe or unpleasant condi- robust collaboration between service systems. tions, and discrimination. Resilience, strengths, and supports. nation’s families. The legislation incorporates a range of bene- Even with the considerable challenges and disadvantages that fits, incentives, and supports for families to successfully exit working poor families encounter, there are protective forces and welfare. It also imposes time limits, work requirements, and factors that work in their favor, supporting positive family rela- sanctions on families to hasten their transition. While it is indis- tionships and sustained employment, and promoting resilient putable that welfare caseloads have decreased considerably and adaptation for children. Orthner, Jones, and Williamson (2004) many individuals have moved from welfare to work, the impact found, in their study of 370 low-income North Carolina fami- of welfare reform on sustained self-sufficiency has not been as lies, that relationship assets positive as was hoped. Complicating matters, the relative eco- About half of such as family cohesion, nomic prosperity of the late 90’s has been replaced by a communication, and prob- depressed economy more recently, introducing further complex- working poor lem solving predict positive ity to the issue. As noted by one researcher, “a decade later, the outcomes even in the con- entire debate has shifted to the conundrum of the persistence of families are headed text of poverty. Similarly, poverty despite work” (Pearce, 2007, p. 1). research suggests that close by married parents, and positive relationships Exiting welfare. with friends and family can Despite finding employment, families’ average earnings frequent- 40% by single provide a protective buffer ly leave them with inadequate income to address their basic for poor children (Attree, needs. This is especially true for one-parent families. For exam- mothers, and 10% 2004). Randolph, Fraser, ple, in their review of income-related census data for single par- and Orthner (2004) found ents, Jones-DeWeever, Peterson, & Song (2003) found that fully by single fathers. that active involvement in 78% of those exiting TANF did so only to enter low-skill, low- school-based extracurricular earnings jobs with little or no activities could reduce the likelihood of dropping out of high advancement potential. Women tended to be in even Arguably, one of the school for children in low-income families. Finally, Gennetian and Miller (2002) found that targeted supports aimed at reduc- lower-skill jobs than men, and earned significantly less. In most significant ing poverty for working poor families yielded academic and behavioral improvements in children. addition, single mothers who were of ethnic minorities tend- challenges facing It is important to note that, despite resource limitations and challenges, working poor families do manage to carve out “fam- ed to remain in such positions longer than did White single working poor ily time” during the course of the day -- during meals, while watching TV, or at playtime (Tubbs, Roy, & Burton, 2005). For mothers. In his study of the early families is that of this to happen, major schedule adjustments may need to occur, such as keeping children awake later or changing parents’ sleep- years of welfare reform, Cheng (2002) found that, of health care. ing patterns to allow for both work and parent-child interac- tions. The Annie E. Casey Foundation data on the impact of parents who transitioned into poverty, described above, reflects similar findings. For example, the workforce, fully 56% found themselves in employment situ- there was no difference between children in poverty and higher- ations that rendered them “working poor.” Further, the mean income children in the rates of religious service attendance, or income of the working poor families was considerably lower in perceptions of children about the closeness of their relation- (by 33%) than that of families who remained TANF recipients. ships with their parents (for both, in the high 80% range). In In a more recent study (2006), Cheng found that restrictions addition, they found that low-income families eat meals togeth- and sanctions, combined with few opportunities for education er regularly at a higher rate than did higher-income families. and skill training, increased the likelihood that a family would Families have also identified factors that support sustained join the ranks of the working poor once they had entered the employment. In her in-depth qualitative study of 20 women workforce. who successfully exited public assistance and obtained living wage employment, Gray (2005) found that formal and informal supports, specifically in the areas of housing, childcare, trans- portation, and emergency assistance, were seen as essential to a successful transition to self-sufficiency. In addition, the women Annotated Bibliography stated that various employment-preparation supports (for exam- For more information on these and other references ple, tuition reimbursement and initial employment expenses) on this topic, please visit the Annotated were critical to positive outcomes. Bibliography section of the FamilyTrends website (www.familytrends.org). This section summarizes Contextual Factors: The Impact of Welfare Reform the research literature and other helpful sources for It is impossible to discuss the circumstances, experiences, and needs of working poor families in the United States with- a particular FamilyTrends Brief. Journals for Social out addressing the issues of welfare reform. The Personal Work, Psychology, Marriage and Family, Public Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of Policy and other similar disciplines are referenced. 1996 set in motion a sweeping set of policy and practice chang- This list will be updated periodically in order to es aimed at increasing the economic self-sufficiency of our capture the most recent literature. The loss of critical resources subsidized coverage (Guendelman & Pearl, 2001; Guendelman, The energetic reduction in the welfare rolls has meant that Wyn, & Tsai, 2002; Guendelman, Angulo, & Oman, 2005). In many families enter the workforce without critical resources. “child-only” cases, children whose parents lose their TANF Boushey (2002) found that fully 47% of families leaving welfare benefits because of sanctions, receive less regular and adequate experienced one or more “critical hardship” (p. 1), including healthcare, even though they are still receiving Medicaid. hunger, homelessness, health crises with inadequate care, and Hofferth (1995), reporting data from the National Child problems with childcare. Care Survey 1990 and A Profile of Child Care Settings, stated Some have suggested that exiting welfare can actually wors- that working poor families experience disadvantages in both en a family’s income and life circumstances, because of the loss access to and quality of child care. Overall, working poor fami- of benefits and lack of accessible or affordable alternatives lies received less in the way of subsidized care than did non- (Basta, 2007; Guendelman & Pearl, 2001; Iverson & working poor families, and were more likely to turn to informal Armstrong, 2007; Romich, Simmelink, & Holt, 2007). Meyers care settings that ranged markedly in quality. This is particularly and Lee (2003), in their study of families who exited TANF in important as children in poverty are at already increased risk New York City, found for a wide range of problems and challenges, and as high quali- that they were much Poor children face ty childcare programs have been shown to enhance cognitive less likely to receive and behavioral outcomes for poor young children with working food or housing assis- continuing risk factors, parent(s) (Lee, 2005). tance, and were less Research suggests that the TANF benefit of subsidized likely to have health including family and childcare is a critical support, particularly for single parents. insurance than were Brooks (2002) found that TANF families not receiving childcare families still receiving community violence, subsidies spent twice as much money on childcare as did their TANF benefits. subsidized counterparts, and that the care was less stable and Anderson and neglect, substance abuse, less likely to be provided by a licensed center. In addition, par- Gryzlak (2002) found ents receiving subsidies were more likely to be employed and that families were and health problems. less likely to be very poor than those who were non-subsidized. often unaware that Similarly, Danziger, Ananat, & Browning (2002) found that some supplemental having childcare subsidies during the transition from welfare to supports could, under certain conditions, continue to be avail- work predicted longer employment duration and greater earn- able to them. ings for families. In their research on obstacles to self-sufficien- Arguably, one of the most significant challenges facing cy for welfare families, Press, Johnson-Dias, and Fagan (2005) working poor families is that of health care. Clemans-Cope, estimated that childcare could reduce the likelihood of full-time Kenney, Pantell, & Perry (2007) observed that, even though employment by as much as 18%. they were employed, fully 60% of families living below 100% FPL, and 40% of those between 100% and 200% FPL, had “Disconnected” workers. access to employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). They Some researchers (Blank, 2007; Loprest & Zedlewski, 2006; noted, further, that only about 60% of low-income workers who Schleiter, Statham, & Reinders, 2005) have identified a small do have access to ESI actually accept it, because the deductibles group of working poor single mothers with the most complex and co-pays are so often prohibitively costly. Some have sug- and severe barriers to work. Blank has described these as “dis- gested that working poor families (even those who work full- connected” workers. They are no longer eligible for TANF time) have access to fewer resources than do nonworking poor because they have reached their 5-year time limit or have been families, who likely have greater access to Medicaid and other sanctioned for not maintaining full time employment. They tend to be younger mothers with larger families, are often sup- porting other disabled family members, have less education, more learning disabilities, and frequent mental health, sub- stance abuse, and/or domestic violence issues. They may have criminal records, which significantly affect their housing and employment prospects. They struggle to maintain employment, and have been unable to transition to self-sufficiency, but their disabilities are not severe enough to qualify for SSI. The researchers have suggested that this group of working poor fam- ilies is at particular risk, and represent 20-25% of those who exit welfare. Implications for Policy and Practice Addressing the needs of working poor families with multiple barriers to employment has not been a simple or straightfor- ward task. It has been challenging to develop interventions that truly support sustained self-sufficiency. Such interventions would need to address not only individual barriers, but work- place issues, labor practices, and social service barriers as well. Increasingly, the importance of such support has become ment, workplace relationships, and other skills that can affect glaringly apparent in both private and public sectors, since such employment tenure and advancement. Ideally, such training will a significant proportion of working families have remained in be developed and delivered with an explicit focus on the needs poverty. Diana Pearce has noted that, “awareness that people’s of local employers (Beimers & Fischer, 2007; Martinson, troubles are at least complicated, if not caused by structural fail- Winston, & Kellam, 2007), and consist of active collaboration ings of the economy and polity, rather than individual failings, among business sectors, nonprofit or foundation sectors, univer- should both inform direct treatment, and broaden the arenas in sities, community colleges, and public/social services. which social workers act on behalf of and with clients … the transformation of the poverty discussion to a focus on working Targeted supports for disconnected workers. poverty reinforces the importance of the social and economic Addressing the needs of parents who experience multiple and context for understanding and treating clients” (p. 3). complex needs continues to be a pressing and challenging con- A number of researchers, program innovators, and experts cern. In their review of current research in this area, Loprest in the field have developed and tested such interventions, and and Martinson (2008) suggested that, to date, the outcomes of have identified a set of working guidelines and principles for interventions targeting this group of vulnerable families (includ- effective strategies. These are described below. ing intensive treatment, employment coaching, and life skills education) have been equivocal at best. While employment may Affordable health insurance for both parents and children. increase, the majority of participants remain in low-income It has been argued that addressing the significant gap in insur- positions, and employment tenure remains tenuous. ance coverage for working Americans would benefit workers, their children, and their employers. Clemans-Cope et. al (2007) Loprest and Martinson recommended a series of promising pro- summarized research findings related to health coverage (and its gram directions based on their review of current research. absence), and observed that, consistently, adequate health insur- These include: ance was associated with improved health and mental health status for parents and children, as well as reduced absenteeism Interventions combining mental health and/or substance and greater productivity in the workplace. Recommendations abuse treatment with subsidized/supported employment; regarding health coverage have included a wide range of strate- gies, including expanded eligibility criteria for public benefits, Intensive case management providing for coordination of ser- creation of small business and low-income purchasing pools, vices and continuous monitoring and support; insurance premium subsidies for low-income persons, and pro- vision of employer incentives or tax credits (see, for example, Removal of the disincentives to work, so that increased Perry & Blumberg, 2008). employment tenure does not lead to the immediate loss of public benefits Workplace supports that are typical of higher-skill, higher-earning jobs extending to the jobs in which many working poor families are employed. These intervention strategies would require federal involvement These include, in addition to health insurance, the availability and support in order to modify current TANF regulations to of paid sick and vacation time, family leave, and flexibility in accommodate their implementation, and to collaborate in the schedules, ongoing childcare supports, creative supports for development of appropriate funding streams. For example, in families’ transportation needs, and support for continuing edu- her discussion of the vulnerabilities and needs of disconnected cation and skill development. As discussed above, one of the workers, Blank (2007) recommended a “Temporary and Partial challenges for families exiting TANF is that they lose the very Waiver Program” for disconnected workers, designed specifical- supports that have aided them in returning to the workforce, ly to create a safety net for these most vulnerable women. Such leaving them at risk for illness, absenteeism, and tenuous a waiver would provide flexibility in the time limits, work employment. It has been argued that investing in such supports requirements, and sanctions imposed within TANF, in order to actually increases employee retention and productivity (Strawn support the greatest possible self-sufficiency, while recognizing & Martinson, 2002). As with health coverage, recommended and accommodating the longer process often required for strategies range from government subsidies to individuals to women with such complex and entrenched problems. employer incentives. A multi-faceted and collaborative process. Ongoing education about financial issues contributing to self-sufficiency. In terms of the process of service delivery, there is considerable Such education should address the availability of benefits after consistency in the literature that the more streamlined, centrally exiting TANF, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, asset located, and multi-disciplinary the services, the more accessible building, predatory lending, working with banks and other they will be to families, and thus, the more effective. Bryner and financial institutions, and other topics of importance. Pilot Martin (2005), in their review of welfare-to-work interventions, efforts in this arena have shown promising results (Anderson, suggested that the optimal service model combines “human Zhan, & Scott, 2007). capital development” (education, training, skill development) with “labor force attachment strategies” (job development and Effective preparation for employment and training/career advancement strategies. placement). One such collaboration, for example, joined aca- Such activities must be tailored to the needs of the individual as demic, business, human resource, educational, and financial well as the current labor market. Such preparation may well institutions in an effort to advocate for and support low-income include treatment for mental health and/or substance abuse dis- employees (Hoffmire, 2007). orders, as well as training in problem solving, stress manage- Experts call for genuine collaboration among private and public sectors, including social services, employers, unions, Cheng, T. (2006). How is “welfare-to-work” shaped by contingen- community colleges, health professionals, educators, and the cies of economy, welfare policy, and human capital? like. Finally, the use of intensive case management, continuing International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 212-219. for as long as needed, is recommended as a critical resource for vulnerable working poor families navigating the path to self-suf- Cheng, T. (2002). Welfare recipients: How do they become inde- ficiency. pendent? Social Work Research, 26(3), 159-170. References Clemans-Cope, L., Kenney, G. M., Pantell, M., & Perry, C. Anderson, S. G. & Gryzlak, B. (2002). Social work advocacy in (2007). Access to employer-sponsored health insurance among low- the post-TANF environment: Lessons from early TANF income families: Who has access and who doesn’t? Washington, DC: research studies. Social Work, 47(3), 301-314. The Urban Institute. Anderson, S. G., Halter, A. P., & Gryzlak, B. M. (2004). Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Piliavin, I., & Zinn, A. (2005). Difficulties after leaving TANF: Inner-city women talk about Involvement of TANF applicant families with child welfare reasons for returning to welfare. Social Work, 49(2), 185-195. services. Social Service Review, 79(1), 119-157. Anderson, S. G., Zhan, M., & Scott, J. (2007). Improving the Danziger, S. K., Ananat, E. O. & Browning, K. G. (2004). knowledge and attitudes of low income families about banking Childcare subsidies and the transition from welfare to work. and predatory financial practices. Families in Society, 88(3), Family Relations, 53(2), 219-228. 443-452. Drake, B. & Pandey, S. (1996). Understanding the relationship Annie E. Casey Foundation (2008). Kids count profile for North between neighborhood poverty and specific types of child mal- Carolina. Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation. treatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(11), 1003-1018. Attree, P. (2004). Growing up in disadvantage: a systematic Gennetian, L. A. & Miller, C. (2002). Children and welfare review of the qualitative evidence. Child: Care, Health, & reform: A view from an experimental welfare program in Development, 30(6), 679-689. Minnesota. Child Development, 73(2), 601-620. Basta, M. (2007). The difficulty of obtaining a child care subsidy: Gooden, S. T. (2006). Addressing racial disparities in social wel- Implications for policy and practice. Families in Society, 88(3), fare programs: Using social equity analysis to examine the 427-436. problem. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 22(2), 1-12. Beimers, D. & Fischer, R. L. (2007). Pathways to employment: Gray, K. A. (2005). Women who succeeded in leaving public The experiences of TANF recipients with employment servic- assistance for a living wage job. Qualitative Social Work, 4(3), es. Families in Society, 88(3), 391-400. 309-326. Berger, L. M. (2005). Income, family characteristics, and physical Guendelman, S., Angulo, V., & Oman, D. (2005). Access to violence toward children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(2), 107-133. health care for children and adolescents in working poor fami- lies: Recent findings from California. Medical Care, 43(1), 68-78. Blank, R. M. (2007). Improving the safety net for single mothers who face serious barriers to work. The Future of Children, 17(2), Guendelman, S., Wyn, R., & Tsai, Y. (2002). Children of work- 183-197. ing poor families in California: The effects of insurance status on access and utilization of primary health care. Journal of Boushey, H. (2002). Former Welfare Families Need More Help: Health & Social Policy, 14(4), 1-20. Hardships Await Those Making the Transition to Workforce. Washington, D.C. : Economic Policy Institute. Guendelman, S. & Pearl, M. (2001). Access to care for children of the working poor. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, Boushey, H., Brocht, C., Gundersen, B., & Bernstein, J. (2001). 155, 651-658. Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families. Washington, D.C. : Economic Policy Institute. Gyafmi, P. (2004). Children with serious emotional disturbance: the impact of poverty and receipt of public assistance on Brooks, F. (2002). Impacts of child care subsidies on family and behavior, functioning, and service use. Children and Youth child well-being. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 498-511. Services Review, 26, 1129-1139. Brooks, F. (2007). The living wage movement: Potential implica- Hofferth, S. L. (1995). Caring for children at the poverty line. tions for the working poor. Families in Society, 88(3), 437-442. Children and Youth Service Review, 17, 61-90. Bryner, G. & Martin, G. (2005). Innovation in welfare policy: Hoffmire, J. S. (2007). Promising practices in the development Evaluating state efforts to encourage work among low-income and distribution of asset-building products and programs. families. Review of Policy Research, 22(3), 325-343. Families in Society, 88(3), 472-474. Iverson, R. R. & Armstrong, A. L. (2007). Parents’ work, depres- Schleiter, M. K., Statham, A., & Reinders, T. (2005). Challenges sive symptoms, children, and family economic mobility: What faced by women with disabilities under TANF. Journal of can ethnography tell us? Families in Society, 88(3), 339-350. Women, Politics, and Policy, 27(3/4), 81-95. Jones-DeWeever, A., Peterson, J., & Song, X. (2003). Before and Siegel, D. I. & Abbott, A. A. (2007). The work lives of the low- after welfare reform: The work and well-being of low-income single income welfare poor. Families in Society, 88(3), 401-412. parent families. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Sedlak, A. J. & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Executive summary of the third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Lee, K. (2005). Effects of experimental center-based child care on Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, developmental outcomes of young children living in poverty. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Social Service Review, 79, 158-181. Sobolewski, J. M. & Amato, P. R. (2005). Economic hardship in Loprest, P. & Martinson, K. (2008). Supporting work for low-income the family of origin and children’s psychological well-being in people with significant challenges (New Safety Net Paper 5). adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 141-156. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Strawn, J. & Martinson, K. (2002). Steady work and better jobs: How Loprest, P. & Zedlewdki, S. (2006). The changing role of welfare in to help low-income parents sustain employment and advance in the the lives of low-income families with children (Occasional Paper # workforce. Oakland, CA: Manpower Demonstration Research 73 from the Assessing the New Federalism series). Washington, Corp. DC: The Urban Institute. Tubbs, C. Y., Roy, K. M., & Burton, L. M. (2005). Family ties: Martinson, K., Winston, P., & Kellam, S. (2007). Public and pri- Constructing family time in low-income families. Family Process, vate roles in supporting working families: An Urban Institute 44(1), 77-91. Roundtable. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007). A profile of the working poor, Meyers, M. K. & Lee, J. M. (2003). Working but poor: How are 2005 (Report 1001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of families faring? Children and Youth Services Review, 25(3), Labor. 177-201. Newman, K. S., & Chin, M. M. (2003). About the Jordan Institute High stakes: Time, poverty, testing, and Created in 1996, the Jordan Institute for Families is the research, training, and the children of the working poor. technical assistance arm of the School of Social Work at The University of North Qualitative Sociology, 26(1), 3-34. Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Jordan Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organiza- tion that develops knowledge and promotes practices and policies that build sup- Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., & portive families and stable communities. Williamson, S. (2004). The resilience and Cutting across traditional disciplinary lines, the Jordan Institute is a conduit strengths of low-income families. Family partnering scholars and researchers from complementary fields. This interdisciplin- Relations, 53(2), 159-167. ary approach leads to rich and relevant research and training and ensures that the Jordan Institute makes substantive and systemic contributions to policy and prac- Pearce, D. M. (2007). When work is not the tice. answer: new challenges for the millenni- The Jordan Institute addresses family issues across the lifespan that threaten to um. Families in Society, 88(3), 1-3. undermine some families-such as poverty, abuse, mental illness, school failure, and substance abuse-as well as challenges that confront most families--such as provid- Perry, C. D. & Blumberg, L. J. (2008). ing for aging family members and caring for young children. Making work pay II: Comprehensive health For more information about the Jordan Institute and insurance for low-income working families its projects, please visit <www.jiforfamilies.org>. (New Safety Net Paper 2). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Press, J., Johnson-Dias, J., & Fagan, J. (2005). Welfare status and Vandivere, S., O’Hare, W. P., Atienza, A., & Rivers, K. L. (2007). child care as obstacles to full-time work for low-income moth- States ranked on the basis of the condition of children in low-income ers. Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, 27(3/4), 55-79. families: A KIDS COUNT working paper. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation Randolph, K. A., Fraser, M. W., & Orthner, D. K. (2004). Educational resilience among youth at risk. Substance use & Waldron, T., Roberts, B., & Reamer, A. (2004). Working hard, fall- Misuse, 39(5), 747-767. ing short: America’s working families and the pursuit of economic security. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Romero, D., Chavkin, W., & Wise, P. (2000). The impact of wel- fare reform policies on child protective services: A national study. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 799-810.
Pages to are hidden for
"Working Poor Families"Please download to view full document