Welfare Reform, Institutional Practices, and Service-Delivery Settings<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1996 U.S. welfare reform legislation promises to fundamentally restructure the ways in which local institutional practices and clients interact within welfare neighborhoods. Focusing on the neglected scale of the service delivery setting, I conceptualize the implications of federal welfare reform for institutional practices and examine actual institutional outcomes within the University Park neighborhood in Los Angeles. Employing a multimethod approach, I use descriptive and inferential statistics as well as qualitative case studies to seek evidence of change within and across three components: welfare reform as external burden and opportunities; welfare reform promoting internal reconfiguration; and welfare reform impacting service delivery settings. The overall results are mixed, with change concentrating in the first and second components, in terms of greater client and institutional need as well as superficial administrative changes. Change to service delivery settings manifested itself more subtly in the reallocation of resources toward mothers with children and employable clients and away from serving the difficult-to-employ and single adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".