A.C. Lewin and E. Maurin
Evaluation Review, vol.29, 2005, p.507-529
The 100-hour rule in the USA limits eligibility of two-parent families for welfare benefits to those where the principal earner is unemployed or underemployed (works less than 100 hours per month). The article tests the hypothesis that this rule creates a poverty trap, since welfare benefits increase with family size whereas wages do not. Large families find themselves better off on benefits than in work. Data from the Link-Up randomised experiment conducted in California’s Central Valley, 1992-1994 confirm the hypothesis.
F.D. Perlmutter and others
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol.34, 2005, p.473-490
The intention of the 1996 US Welfare Reform Act was to move people off benefits and into work. The nonprofit, public and for-profit sectors have all played a role in providing jobs for this population. It is important that former welfare clients keep their jobs and do not have a revolving door experience. This article reports the results of a large-scale empirical study that explored the effects of a range of human resource practices associated with the retention of former welfare recipients in the nonprofit, for-profit and public sectors. Results indicate that job retention is higher in the nonprofit sector than the others, and this may be a result of HR practices that emphasise investment in, and commitment to, employees.