Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:13:46.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heavy Alcohol Use, Alcohol and Drug Screening and their Relationship to Mothers' Welfare Participation: A Temporal-ordered Causal Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

TYRONE C. CHENG  and
CELIA C. LO
TYRONE C. CHENG
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Alabama, 118 Little Hall, Box 870314, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0314, USA email: [email protected]
CELIA C. LO
Affiliation:
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama, 425 Farrah Hall, Box 870320, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0320, USA email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the association between heavy alcohol use, alcohol- and drug-screening requirements, and social support network variables and mothers' welfare participation in the United States. The study was a secondary data analysis of 3,517 mothers. The sample was extracted from National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data gathered in 1994–2004. Results of logistic regression show welfare participation is not associated with heavy alcohol use or alcohol- and drug-screening requirements, but is associated with a history of reported heavy alcohol use, informal help with childcare, and scant human capital. Results also indicate that alcohol- and drug screening required under TANF may not exclude heavy drinking mothers from TANF participation, and that social support networks do not cancel heavy drinking's association with participation. Policy implications are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 543 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bryant, R. R., Samaranayake, V. A. and Wilhite, A. (2000), ‘The effect of drug use on wages: a human capital interpretation’, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26: 4, 659–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C., Dunbar, D., Micks, S., Brown, M. and Davis-Johnson, M. (1997), ‘Virginia: promoting independence and employment’, Public Welfare, 55: 3, 21–32.Google Scholar
Chandler, D., Meisel, J., Jordan, P., Rienzi, B. M. and Goodwin, S. N. (2004), ‘Substance abuse, employment, and welfare tenure’, Social Service Review, 78: 4, 628–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. C. (1995), ‘The chances of recipients leaving AFDC: a longitudinal study’, Social Work Research, 19: 2, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. C. (2002), ‘Welfare recipients: how do they become independent?’, Social Work Research, 26: 3, 159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. C. (2003), ‘Welfare “recidivism” among former welfare recipients’, Families in Society, 84: 1, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. C. (2007a), ‘How is “welfare-to-work” shaped by contingencies of economy, welfare policy, and human capital?’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16: 3, 212–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. C. (2007b), ‘Impact of work requirements on the psychological well-being of TANF recipients’, Health and Social Work, 32: 1, 41–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, T. C. and McElderry, C. G. (2007), ‘How do drug use and social relations affect welfare participation?’, Social Service Review, 81: 1, 155–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, G. F., Graefe, D. R., Irving, S. K. and St Pierre, T. (2006), ‘Measuring state TANF policy variations and change after reform’, Social Science Quarterly, 87: 4, 755–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edin, K. and Lein, L. (1997a), Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Low-Wage Work, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Edin, K. and Lein, L. (1997b), ‘Work, welfare, and single mothers’ economic survival strategies’, American Sociological Review, 62: 2, 253–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, S. E. (1995), Causal Analysis with Panel Data, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorske, T. T., Larkby, C., Daley, D. C., Yenerall, E. and Morrow, L. A. (2006), ‘Childhood abuse and psychiatric impairment in a sample of welfare to work women’, Children and Youth Services Review, 28: 12, 1528–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, B. F. and Dawson, D. A. (1996), ‘Alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence among welfare recipients’, American Journal of Public Health, 86: 10, 1450–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, J. W. and Hilbe, J. M. (2003), Generalized Estimating Equations, Boca Baton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Harknett, K. (2006), ‘The relationship between private safety nets and economic outcomes among single mothers’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68: 1, 172–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearing on Welfare Reform (2002), ‘Hearing on welfare reform reauthorization proposals: testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources’, US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, GPO, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Henderson, S., Dohan, D. and Schmidt, L. A. (2006), ‘Barriers to identifying substance abuse in the reformed welfare system’, Social Service Review, 80: 2, 217–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henly, J. R. (2002), ‘Informal support networks and the maintenance of low-wage jobs’, in Munger, F. (ed.), Laboring below the Line: The New Ethnography of Poverty, Low-wage Work, and Survival in the Global Economy, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Henly, J. R., Danziger, S. K. and Offer, S. (2005), ‘The contribution of social support to the material well-being of low-income families’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67: 1, 122–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbeck, K. and Kimmel, J. (2002), ‘The role of postsecondary education in welfare reform – Ohio's JOBS Student Retention Program’, Evaluation Review, 26: 6, 618–44.Google ScholarPubMed
James, S. E., Johnson, J. and Raghavan, C. (2004), ‘“I couldn't go anywhere” – contextualizing violence and drug abuse: a social network study’, Violence against Women, 10: 9, 991–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayakody, R., Danziger, S. and Pollack, H. A. (2000), ‘Welfare reform, substance use, and mental health’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 25: 4, 623–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaestner, R. (1998), ‘Drug use and AFDC participation: is there a connection?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17: 3, 495–520.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalil, A., Seefeldt, K. S. and Wang, H. C. (2002), ‘Sanctions and material hardship under TANF’, Social Service Review, 76: 4, 642–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaushal, N. and Kaestner, R. (2001), ‘From welfare to work: has welfare reform worked?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20: 4, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcenko, M. O. and Fagan, J. (1996), ‘Welfare to work: what are the obstacles?’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23: 3, 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. (2004), NLSY79 User's Guide: A Guide to the 1979–2002 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Data, Miller, S. (ed.), Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resources Research, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, J., Riordan, A., Dephilippis, D., Irwin, T. W., Blanchard, K. A., McCrady, B. S. and McVeigh, K. H. (2001), ‘Specialized screening approaches can substantially increase the identification of substance abuse problems among welfare recipients’, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Mulia, N. and Schmidt, L. A. (2003), ‘Conflicts and trade-offs due to alcohol and drugs: clients’ accounts of leaving welfare’, Social Service Review, 77: 4, 499–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulia, N., Schmidt, L., Bond, J., Jacobs, L. and Korcha, R. (2008), ‘Stress, social support and problem drinking among women in poverty’, Addiction, 103: 8, 1283–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichols, L., Elman, C. and Feltey, K. M. (2006), ‘The economic resource receipt of new mothers’, Journal of Family Issues, 27: 9, 1305–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, H. A., Danziger, S., Seefeldt, K. S. and Jayakody, R. (2002), ‘Substance use among welfare recipients: trends and policy responses’, Social Service Review, 76: 2, 256–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radey, M. and Brewster, K. L. (2007), ‘The influence of race/ethnicity on disadvantaged mothers’ child care arrangements’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22: 3, 379–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansone, F. A. (1998), ‘Social support's contribution to reduced welfare dependency: program outcomes of long term welfare recipients’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 25: 4, 105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, L., Weisner, C. and Wiley, J. (1998), ‘Substance abuse and the course of welfare dependency’, American Journal of Public Health, 88: 11, 1616–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, L. and McCarty, D. (2000), ‘Welfare reform and the changing landscape of substance abuse set-vices for low-income women’, Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research, 24: 8, 1298–311.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, L., Dohan, D., Wiley, J. and Zabkiewicz, D. (2002), ‘Addiction and welfare dependency: interpreting the connection’, Social Problems, 49: 2, 221–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, L., Wiley, J., Dohan, D., Zabkiewicz, D., Jacobs, L. M., Henderson, S. and Zivot, M. (2006), ‘Changing patterns of addiction and public aid receipt: tracking the unintended consequences of welfare reform’, Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 31: 5, 945–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, L., Zabkiewicz, D., Jacobs, L. and Wiley, J. (2007), ‘Substance abuse and employment among welfare mothers: from welfare to work and back again?’, Substance Use and Misuse, 42: 7, 1069–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. D. and Willett, J. B. (2003), Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, A. R., McLaughlin, D. K. and Findeis, J. (2006), ‘Household composition and poverty among female-headed households with children: differences by race and residence’, Rural Sociology, 71: 4, 597–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2007), 2006 National Survey on Drug Use & Health: National Results, Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
Thoits, P. A. (1985), ‘Social support and psychological well-being: theoretical possibilities’, in Sarason, I. G. and Sarason, B. R. (eds.), Social Support: Theory, Research, and Applications, Hingham, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
To Review Outcomes (2006), ‘To Review Outcomes of 1996 Welfare Reforms’, Hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, GPO, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Urban Institute (1996), ‘Welfare rule database: selected rules’, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Urban Institute (2004), ‘Welfare rules database: selected rules’, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services (1999), ‘Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program’, Second Annual Report to Congress, August 1999, USDHHS, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Zabkiewicz, D. and Schmidt, L. A. (2007), ‘Behavioral health problems as barriers to work: results from a 6-year panel study of welfare recipients’, Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 34: 2, 168–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed