View the full project profile

Project Description

Social programs include welfare, Medicaid, and workforce development. Functions examined are: 1) management including the redirection of bureaucratic cultures; 2) the development of oversight systems to hold public and private entities accountable for performance; 3) the allocation of budgets and staff to achieve program goals; and 4) the creation and use of management information systems appropriate to program goals.

Project duration: Jan 1997 - Apr 2002

Sites studied include Arizona
California
Florida
Georgia
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied

Sample size varies depending on the scope of the study. In addition to the state-level analysis, the 2001-02 round of research also includes 2 or more local sites in each state. For a description of field-network methodology, refer to "First Look" book on the Rockefeller Institute website.

Recent Findings in Brief

08/01/02: State Capacity Study: Welfare Reform in Utah

Interim Descriptive/Analytical Findings:

"Utah’s approach to welfare reform, like that of other states, focuses on promoting work. Every part of the welfare system is oriented toward that goal. The DWS and other state agencies have largely decided not to take on the life-style and family stability issues such as teen pregnancy and strengthening two parent families, that many conservatives champion. There is a long tradition of limited government intervention in such matters. The main focus of effort is to get women into the work force, through an aggressive planning process that provides support to get into the labor market, and the imposition of sanctions to deter noncompliance."

"From the perspective of reducing welfare rolls and reorienting welfare agencies, Utah’s welfare reform efforts have largely been a success. State agencies have been transformed. The Department of Workforce Services and the Department of Human Services have made significant progress in the area of service integration. The number of recipients have fallen dramatically and many have moved into the workforce. The goal of helping families receiving assistance become self-supporting is more difficult to assess. Some families face multiple barriers and may never be able to be self-supporting. Others will need more help than the three-year time limit allows. Some may be able to work their way out of poverty but we will not know until the next economic downturn how secure their economic future is. Utah has not invested as much in education and career development as some recipients will likely need to move out of poverty."

"The goal of self-support can mean earning enough to no longer quality for cash assistance, or it can mean a job that pays enough to rise above poverty. The Utah welfare reform program, like those of other states, may achieve only the first goal. The question of whether the state is doing enough to help families move from poverty to a sustainable level of income, rather than simply moving beyond the minimum income level provided by cash assistance is not just an empirical question to be answered during the next several years. It is also intertwined with an important normative debate that underlies welfare reform debate in Utah and elsewhere. From one view, welfare reform is all about self-sufficiency—helping families who have been dependent on assistance in getting off the rolls and becoming independent. While some advocates of such a view want to reduce government spending, they more broadly represent the view that people are best served by being independent and self-sufficient—that it is in their own interest to be free from having to depend on others for their income. Others counter that interdependence, not independence, is the more appropriate social goal—that welfare should be built on the recognition that we are all dependent on each other, responsible for each other, able to call on each other for help, and committed to ensuring that those who have the most skills, resources, energy, and other productive attributes help those who have fewer resources."

"While some argue that there is now widespread agreement over the shortcomings of the old welfare system and the elements of the new one, others insist that the debate continue along these broad, ideological lines. Should the ultimate goal be minimal government, so that people are largely on their own, self-supporting and autonomous, or should the objective be a more connected community, with more interaction, responsibility, and sharing of resources? If the state opts for the latter, should that community be underwritten by government, or should it be voluntary, left to private groups and efforts? Should the state accept whatever poverty results from giving families three (or five) years of assistance or should state officials and others continually seek ways to improve well-being, decrease inequalities, and increase opportunities? The former, more libertarian view, dominates the national debate over reinventing welfare. But strong voices defend the alternative view and are looking for a forum in which to explore the much broader agenda of reducing poverty and finding new ways to offer low-income families and their children in particular access to more opportunities for education, health, and progress."

"One of the most important outcomes of welfare reform in Utah is the recognition that governments can formulate and implement major changes in policy in a relatively short time period. While the consequences of such changes are uncertain at best, and sometimes unfortunate, they are at least evidence that the policymaking process can respond to criticism. A large part of what made welfare reform possible was a strong consensus that the old system did not work. Liberals came to embrace the importance of work; conservatives came to accept the idea that poor people need help from government. The latter made some level of commitment to engage in practical, problem-solving efforts rather than partisan wrangling."

"Unfortunately, welfare reform has addressed only a small part of the agenda surrounding poor families, and much more remains to be done to help them escape poverty. Welfare policymakers and analysts in Utah and elsewhere have much to learn about the causes of poverty, and how to design and implement policies that will help those most in need of assistance. Welfare is not yet a public problem that has been solved, but only a problem that is now beginning to be addressed differently than before. Policy innovation is a continuing public need in fashioning a new round of public policies, including state-private partnerships and other efforts that address the causes of poverty and the need for welfare, including spouse abuse, job discrimination, poor health, inadequate development of social skills, and poor education. The limited success of welfare reform is an encouraging sign that perhaps additional policy changes can address these root causes and prevent some of the problems that welfare systems are created to repair."

Contact