States are not required to provide subsidies for childcare and transportation, but at the time of this writing all provided some supplements to TANF participants who were working, looking for work, or attending school. However, there has been little assessment of the effectiveness of these programs. Using data from a longitudinal study on Families First participants in the state of Tennessee, this exploratory study addresses the questions of whether transportation and childcare supplements contribute to the ability of TANF participants to move off welfare and support their families adequately through their own efforts, and whether outcomes from these services differ by geographic location. The survey sample consisted of 3,569 respondents who were currently receiving or who had recently received TANF services through Tennessee's Families First program, beginning with the initial survey in 2001. Regardless of any assistance provided for childcare and transportation, which have been addressed in the literature as significant barriers to employment and thus the well-being of TANF participants, most of the survey participants remain among the poorest families in the country. While transportation and childcare supports may alleviate some of the barriers that TANF participants must overcome, this research finds that they do not in themselves improve the likelihood that poor families will be abot to move out of poverty. However, there are some indicators that they do help in terms of having employment, which is the first step toward achieving financial well-being.

Policies are shaped by social values and assumptions, and can significantly impact the delivery of health and social services. Marginalized groups are often disadvantaged in the political realm and reliant on publicly funded services and supports. The purpose of this research is to consider how public policies are constructed and implemented for marginalized groups and to increase understanding of the consequences of policy reform. It draws on a case study of the Ontario Disability Support Program, Employment Supports (ODSP-ES) and considers the impact of the policy revision that occurred in 2006 on employment support services for people living with mental illness. A constructivist grounded theory approach guided data collection and analysis. Key policy documents were analyzed and 25 key informant interviews were conducted with individuals who were involved in: the construction and/or implementation of the policy; developing and/or delivering employment services under the policy; or advocacy work related to the policy. The findings highlight the impact of outcome-based funding on employment services and practices, and provide lessons for the construction and implementation of public policy for marginalized groups. The new funding system has promoted a shift from a traditional social service model of employment supports towards a marketing model, wherein services focus on increasing job placement and short-term job retention rates. However, the introduction of market principles into employment services has had significant implications for people living with mental illness. Employment programs are required to absorb increased financial risk, thereby altering the way service providers work with clients to help them find and keep jobs; there is a heightened focus on the rapid placement of clients into available jobs and less attention to the quality of employment being achieved and to complex barriers that prevent individuals from succeeding with employment. Although ODSP-ES has been somewhat successful at connecting people with disabilities to competitive employment, it has led to secondary consequences that compromise its overall utility. The findings highlight the complexity of constructing and implementing public policy for marginalized groups and suggest that evaluating public policy is an interpretative exercise that should be explored from multiple perspectives beyond the stated objectives.

Policies are shaped by social values and assumptions, and can significantly impact the delivery of health and social services. Marginalized groups are often disadvantaged in the political realm and reliant on publicly funded services and supports. The purpose of this research is to consider how public policies are constructed and implemented for marginalized groups and to increase understanding of the consequences of policy reform. It draws on a case study of the Ontario Disability Support Program, Employment Supports (ODSP-ES) and considers the impact of the policy revision that occurred in 2006 on employment support services for people living with mental illness. A constructivist grounded theory approach guided data collection and analysis. Key policy documents were analyzed and 25 key informant interviews were conducted with individuals who were involved in: the construction and/or implementation of the policy; developing and/or delivering employment services under the policy; or advocacy work related to the policy. The findings highlight the impact of outcome-based funding on employment services and practices, and provide lessons for the construction and implementation of public policy for marginalized groups. The new funding system has promoted a shift from a traditional social service model of employment supports towards a marketing model, wherein services focus on increasing job placement and short-term job retention rates. However, the introduction of market principles into employment services has had significant implications for people living with mental illness. Employment programs are required to absorb increased financial risk, thereby altering the way service providers work with clients to help them find and keep jobs; there is a heightened focus on the rapid placement of clients into available jobs and less attention to the quality of employment being achieved and to complex barriers that prevent individuals from succeeding with employment. Although ODSP-ES has been somewhat successful at connecting people with disabilities to competitive employment, it has led to secondary consequences that compromise its overall utility. The findings highlight the complexity of constructing and implementing public policy for marginalized groups and suggest that evaluating public policy is an interpretative exercise that should be explored from multiple perspectives beyond the stated objectives.