Selection of Cities i. Xxxx Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation and Smart Cities to extent possible ii. Population size >100,000 (unless vulnerable to climate change – e.g., coastal cities, or city identified as having economic growth potential by state)
Selection of Cities. First, the universe of cities with populations equal to or greater than 200,000 people (n=77) were ranked based on the generosity of their welfare policies, the strength of the child support system, and labor conditions. The authors selected these three measures because they are believed to act as moderators of one another. For example, more generous welfare measures may relate to family structure and wellbeing differently when the labor market is thriving compared to when the labor market is in recession. Welfare generosity was defined via two indicators: 1) as the amount of TANF cash benefits provided to a family of four and 2) the value of the monthly cash benefit divided by the median monthly rent in that city. Then, cities were assigned to a quartile based on generosity of benefits. Subsequently, researchers defined as a high benefit city, moderate benefit city and low benefit city using the following criteria: • High benefits – a city had either 1) two extreme high values (top quartile) for both indicators or 2) top quartile value for at least one indicator and the other indicator was not in the bottom quartile; • Moderate benefits – a city did not have an extreme value for either indicator; • Low benefits – a city had either 1) two extreme low values (bottom quartile) for both indicators or 2) bottom quartile value for at least one indicator and the other indicator was not in the bottom quartile. If the indicators for a city straddled or came close to the quartile boundary, the researchers also considered time limits and work requirements in assigning the level of welfare generosity for that state, where no time limits and no work requirements were considered more generous and might move a city into a higher level of generosity. The strength of the child support system was defined via three indicators including the following: 1) the rate by which families established paternity in 1994 and 1995; 2) the proportion of AFDC cases in which child support was awarded in 1995; and 3) the proportion of AFDC cases with a child support payment in 1995. Cities were then organized into quartiles based on each indicator and then assigned the following categories: • Strong child support system –high values (top quartile) for two out of three indicators • Moderate child support – one or fewer extreme values for the indicators • Weak child support system –low values (bottom quartile) for two out of three indicators Because cities often use different denominators to ...
