The last several decades have seen a proliferation of specialized courts, including within the family court system, that deviate from the adversarial model, and that rely on therapeutic jurisprudence and other problem-solving techniques. Whether and how traditional family courts can incorporate the best practices of these specialized courts is a largely understudied area. Drawing from ethnographic observations of a traditional urban family court, this study finds that some judges are able to transform nontherapeutic courtrooms into therapeutic ones despite obstacles. These "against the grain" actors, who act contrary to the institution's dominant norms and practices, demonstrate how therapeutic jurisprudence and other problem-solving techniques can be utilized in traditional courtrooms.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, widely heralded as the "end to welfare as we know it," is in its sixth year of implementation. According to many, the welfare debate has been settled, and both legislators and the public have proclaimed the program a success. This article examines the accumulated data on the effect of welfare reform, which shows, contrary to popular opinion, the goal of self-sufficiency remains elusive for many, and poor women and their families are being hurt, not helped, by TANF. It is argued that the booming economy and consequent expanding labor market have led to the perceived success of TANF and that the optimism expressed about dwindling welfare rolls is misplaced. The failure of TANF to adequately address obstacles to self-sufficiency in the workplace threatens to create an even worse welfare problem in the future. During the TANF evaluation period, social workers are urged to take a more active role in urging TANF modifications.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

One of the few avenues open to citizens to dispute mistakes in the administration of public welfare programs is administrative hearings (“fair hearings”). However, recipients rarely use them. This has important implications for social equity, as government is obligated to ensure its process for distributing benefits is fair and equitable. Drawing on data from 28 qualitative interviews with recipients who were sanctioned for violating the work rules, this study explores why recipients appealed, or did not appeal, their work sanctions. The findings indicate that nearly all of the recipients believed they were wrongfully sanctioned and were aware of their right to appeal. For recipients who did not appeal, the fair hearing system was indistinguishable from the rest of the agency, which they viewed as inflexible and intractable. In contrast, those who appealed viewed fair hearings more favorably, and unlike the nonappealers, had been encouraged to appeal by social networks.