FROM : Arkansas Transitional Employment Assistance (TEA) Program: Barriers to Aid for Low-Income Families

Reviewer-1 comments

1. Wording is not clear, did they mean “where each had” rather than which?

Response: We thank the reviewer for the helpful and constructive comments. We have addressed each of the reviewer’s comments below and hope the manuscript will be acceptable for publication. We have reworded this section to “where each state” to enhance clarity.

2. Could you expand on this a little more and give a comparison rather than generally.

Response: As suggested, we have expanded to provide comparisons of the Arkansas income eligibility standard with the federal poverty level and the Arkansas minimum wage.

3. Could you add how these factors are looked at in other states

Response: We have expanded on income eligibility standard and income disregards as applied by Mississippi to provide an appropriate comparison to Arkansas. We have also provided a broader illustration of national financial eligibility standards.

4. What is the reading level now?

Response: We have elaborated on the current reading level of the Arkansas TEA application.

5. Is there any state that makes this connection and what is this success?

Response: We have added an addendum in this section addressing this inquiry. As of publication date, there is no information regarding whether or not any other individual states connect application information/eligibility across state welfare programming.

Reviewer-2 comments

Article Title: ARKANSAS TRANSITIONAL EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEA) PROGRAM: BARRIERS TO AID FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

CONTENT

Over-used, outdated                         1          2          3          4          5          Breaking new ground

Poorly researched                             1          2          3          4          5          Well researched

Not relevant to JSWWP                     1          2          3          4          5          Relevant to JSWWP

Superficial                                      1          2          3           4          5          Significant depth

ORGANIZATION

Poorly constructed                              1          2          3        4          5          Well-constructed

Not focused                                         1        2          3         4          5          Well focused

EXPRESSION

Awkward, jargon                                1          2          3          4          5          Succinct, readable

           

RECOMMENDATION

Accept                                                 1          2          3          4          5         

Accept subject to revisions                    1          2          3          4          5         

Reconsider if totally rewritten                1          2          3          4          5         

Reject                                                 1          2          3          4          5