Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e93ETL922749; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <C3F476FFF21ED311876600203575AB473BFE1C@literacy.loyno.edu>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "(Literacy) Maria D Lewis" <mdlewis@cba.loyno.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:99] Poverty Research News Online
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain;
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Status: O
Content-Length: 4003
Lines: 93
Following is an overview of the current Joint Center for Poverty Research
newsletter that is now available on our web site.
The latest issue of POVERTY RESEARCH NEWS looks at the effects of welfare
reform and poverty in rural areas and points to the policy implications of
failing to distinguish the effects of reform in different regions of the
country. Following is a brief description of the articles. Click on the
links below to read more.
WHOSE JOB IS IT? EMPLOYERS' VIEWS OF WELFARE REFORM
Greg Owen, Ellen Shelton, Amy Bush Stevens, Justine
Nelson-Christinedaughter,
Corinna Roy, and June Heineman
The authors interviewed employers in Minnesota who were participating in
partnerships that linked local governments, social service providers, and
employers to welfare recipients. These are the employers most likely to be
positive about the potential of welfare recipients. Most, however, provided
little direct help to new workers, did not view this as their
responsibility, and were not prepared to hire ''hard to employ'' workers.
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol4_no5/index.cfm?anchor=story_6&PID=32695&
EmailID=222
RURAL-URBAN DIFFERENCES IN THE MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM (MFIP)
Lisa Gennetian, Cindy Redcross, and Cynthia Miller
The authors report findings from the Minnesota Family Investment Program
(MFIP) on employment and earnings in urban and rural Minnesota. Using an
experimental design, the authors find that MFIP's impact was much more
positive in urban than rural areas.
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol4_no5/index.cfm?anchor=story_7&PID=32695&
EmailID=222
AGENCY DIRECTORS' PERSPECTIVES ON WELFARE REFORM
Ann Tickamyer, Julie White, Barry Tadlock, and Debra Henderson
The authors interviewed welfare administrators in Appalachian Ohio, who have
been given considerable local autonomy under welfare reform. The
administrators are excited about how welfare reform has transformed their
jobs, yet they also recognize the significant structural barriers that
recipients face. Especially in rural Appalachia, the lack of good jobs, poor
transportation, and little economic development confound efforts to land a
job and move out of poverty.
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol4_no5/index.cfm?anchor=story_5&PID=32695&
EmailID=222
HOW THEY'RE FARING: WORK AND EARNINGS UNDER WELFARE REFORM
Sheldon Danziger
Danziger finds similar declines in welfare use and poverty and similar
increases in employment among rural and urban single-parent families over
the past two decades. He also highlights the links between personal barriers
and success in leaving welfare.
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol4_no5/index.cfm?anchor=story_2&PID=32695&
EmailID=222
SMALL TOWNS AND WELFARE REFORM
Cynthia Needles Fletcher, Jan Flora, Barbara Gaddis, Mary Winter, and
Jacquelyn Litt
The authors find that welfare recipients in smaller, more remote towns have
poorer access to jobs and less access to support services. Getting a better
job for these rural families requires a reliable car, yet very few Iowa
welfare recipients own a car.
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol4_no5/index.cfm?anchor=story_3&PID=32695&
EmailID=222
THE IMPACT OF WELFARE REFORM IN PERSISTENTLY POOR RURAL REGIONS
Mark Harvey and Gene Summers
The authors focus on the key role that the informal economy (''under the
table'' work) plays for families in persistently poor rural counties. They
argue that because the formal economy is unable to provide adequate jobs for
former welfare recipients, informal work should be counted toward
participation requirements under reform.
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol4_no5/index.cfm?anchor=story_4&PID=32695&
EmailID=222
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions?
If you think this online service is helpfull click here:
http://www.jcpr.org/lists/Poll.cfm?ID=32695&A=1
If not click here:
http://www.jcpr.org/lists/Poll.cfm?ID=32695&A=0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:24 EST