{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016359918200409, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.091286307053942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Holocaust and Memory in the Global Age (review)

reform. Thus it is an outstanding feature of this research that it provides carefully matched, detailed accounts of welfare reform at the levels of the community, the family, and the responsible agencies in each region. The result is a compendium of comparable experiences and some intriguing insights into sources of difference. The struggle to find jobs, child care and transportation; to cope with violence and entrenched gender role expectations; and the cluelessness, capriciousness and even corruption of local officials is a familiar story across locales. An intriguing difference emerges from examining the race and ethnic composition of the study areas. The authors suggest that extremes in severity and inflexibility of program operations accompany racial and ethnic divides in the local populations. Thus South Dakota, Texas and Mississippi counties – each of which has a majority minority population group – have much more punitive measures than Kentucky with a more homogenous population. Such insights demonstrate the ability of this study to move beyond the superficial findings that have passed for much welfare reform research, leaving a taste for more. Despite a wealth of data, they are less developed than one might desire. This is a minor criticism of an important study that sets a high standard for future research and will be an invaluable resource for students of rural poverty and policy.