The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Higher ground: new hope for the working poor and their children
Abstract
joins a growing literature de-picting the lives of economically disadvantaged families in the United States and proposing poli-cies to set them on a positive course. Authored by three leading social scientists who offer distinct academic perspectives, this book spells out in detail what it takes to create a package of policies that is responsive to the needs of poor families, cost-ef-fective, and politically palatable. At the heart of this analysis is a study of a bold employment-based initiative, called New Hope, that was implemented from 1994 to 1998 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Policy-makers attempting to develop effective strategies for tackling poverty are fortunate when evidence collected through the “gold standard” of random assignment design comes their way, and New Hope is an illuminating example of how such evidence is created. Hence, this book is valuable for what it tells us not only about strategies to fight pov-erty, but also about how to generate evidence on strategies to fight poverty.The book, structured like an academic paper, is essentially in five main parts, describing the circumstances that drove the need for an employ-ment program in Milwaukee, the program design’s technical details, the research component of the project, the findings of that research, and, finally, lessons for national policy. Although the findings that emerged from New Hope are not earth-shat-tering—the effects on employment, income, and children’s achievement reported here are quite close to those found for other comparable employ-ment programs that supplement earnings—the book is a worthy investment for readers who desire a close-up view of a program painstakingly built on the belief that “if you work, you should not be poor.” The richness and intimacy of this view are owing in large part to the authors’ choice, follow-ing the examples of several other investigations of poverty (such as David Hage’s
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010) · Journal of Marriage and Family · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x · Cited by 2,185
Yoshikawa, H., Aber, J. L., & Beardslee, W. R. (2012) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0028015 · Cited by 1,090
How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature
Small, M. L. (2011) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657 · Cited by 829
The Race Discrimination System
Reskin, B. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145508 · Cited by 558
Family Poverty Affects the Rate of Human Infant Brain Growth
Hanson, J. L., Hair, N., Shen, D. G., Shi, F., Gilmore, J. H., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080954 · Cited by 430
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2008-02-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 06
- Pages
- 45-3503-45-3503
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1599578005
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Higher ground: new hope for the working poor and their children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.45-3503
- The paper
- Higher ground: new hope for the working poor and their children. (2008). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-3503
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.