|
|
Reports are free of charge, and may be downloaded from this page.
You may also send an e-mail to request hard copies of the reports marked with an *.
Life On Welfare Series
An empirical examination of who is using welfare today.
 Profile of the Active Caseload: Separate State Programs
& Short-Term Disabilities (October 2006)
Pamela C. Ovwigho, Catherine E. Born, Correne Saunders
| |
The controversial reauthorization of TANF via the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 has created new rules that will represent a significant challenge
to states. This report examines Maryland's Separate State Programs (SSP) and compares them to traditional TANF cases in order to anticipate
what the implications of the various options might be so that the choices made are the ones most suited to the realities of welfare caseloads at
the state and sub-state level.
|
Life On Welfare: A Snapshot of the Active TCA Caseload
in October 2005* (December 2006)
Correne Saunders, Pamela C. Ovwigho, Catherine E. Born
| |
For states to meet the new challenges resulting from the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA),
they must be able to accurately assess their caseload, identify which strategies and programs
are most appropriate for customers’ different situations, and where possible, quickly move families into appropriate activities.
Understanding the characteristics and circumstances of the welfare caseload and its different subpopulations is an excellent starting point for these efforts. To that end, this report, the third bi-annual report in the University of Maryland School of Social Work’s Life on Welfare series, presents a profile of Maryland’s TANF caseload.
|
Barriers to Independence Among TANF Recipients:
Comparing Caseworker Records & Client Surveys* (June 2005)
Pamela C. Ovwigho, Correne Saunders, Catherine E. Born
| |
A study examining the correlation between the presence of barriers as reported by clients to survey researchers and the identification of those same issues as employment
barriers in clients' welfare agency files.
|
Maryland's Child-Only Caseload: A Comparison
of Parental and Non-Parental Cases* (April 2005)
Andrea Hetling, Correne Saunders, Catherine E. Born
| |
This report describes Maryland's child-only caseload and makes comparisons between not only non-child-only and child-only cases but also sub-groups within this population.
|
Life On Welfare: A Snapshot of the Active TCA Caseload in October 2003 (April 2005)
Andrea Hetling, Correne Saunders, Catherine E. Born
| |
A follow-up to the Snapshot from October 2001. |
Life On Welfare: The Active TANF Caseload in Maryland* (February 2004)
Pamela C. Ovwigho, Catherine E. Born, Ann Ferraro, Correne Palazzo
| |
This examination of the current Maryland TANF caseload answers two questions: What is the profile of the current caseload? and How does this profile vary across jurisdictions? |
Life On Welfare: A Snapshot of the Active TCA Caseload in October 2001* (April 2003)
Catherine E. Born, Andrea Hetling-Wernyj, Darren Lacey, Kirk Tracy
| |
There is widespread belief that today's on-welfare families are "hard-to-serve." This study indicates that today's caseload is more likely "different to serve" in some respects.
|
Life On Welfare: Have the Hard-to-serve Been Left Behind? Changes in TANF Caseload Over the Course of Welfare Reform* (May 2001)
Pamela Caudill Ovwigho
| |
Using cross-sectional samples from October 1996 and October 1998, this study examines the hypothesis that the families still receiving TANF face more personal and family challenges in leaving welfare for work, than did families who have already left the rolls.
|
Life On Welfare: Who Gets Assistance 18 Months Into Reform?* (November 1998)
Catherine E. Born, Pamela J. Caudill, Melinda L. Cordero
| |
This report, based on the study of narratives for 358 Frederick County, MD, families who received a TCA check in March 1998, attempts to both provide policy-makers with information that may be useful in meeting the challenges being confronted in the mid-years of welfare reform, and also to better define the phrase "hard to place" used to describe clients who may be at heightened risk of hitting the five year lifetime time limit.
|
|
|
|
