Suchergebnisse

Since the enactment of welfare reform legislation in 1996, the federal government & the states have emphasized putting the needy to work & reducing caseloads. Simultaneously, however, national policymakers delinked eligibility for cash assistance from eligibility for other safety-net benefits. Contrary to stated policy, though, this delinkage has led to declining participation in the case of Food Stamps & health-insurance programs for low-income children. We highlight four factors that states must shape if they are to narrow this gap between policy promise & program performance by fostering higher participation. We show how our focus intersects with enduring questions of US federalism -- the level of state commitment to redistributive programs, their capacity to implement these programs effectively, & the degree to which states can augment governing capacity by becoming more genuine laboratories of democracy. Adapted from the source document.

THE ARTICLE OVERVIEWS INITIAL FINDINGS FROM A MULTI-STATE STUDY ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 WELFARE REFORMS. STATES ARE RESPONDING TO A LAW THAT IS SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY: IT GRANTS THE STATES GREATLY INCREASED FISCAL FLEXIBILITY AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT SETS EXTENSIVE AND ELABORATE NEW BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS. AMONG THE INITIAL FINDINGS, ONE OF THE SURPRISES IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE 1996 REFORM HAS PROMOTED "SECOND-ORDER DEVOLUTION" FROM STATES TO LOCALITIES. IT HAS ALSO REINFORCED AND HEIGHTENED THE EMPHASIS ON "WORK FIRST," PLACING PEOPLE IN JOBS AS THE FIRST STEP IN THE WELFARE PROCESS WITH STATES DEVELOPING A VARIETY OF INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN THIS REGARD.

President Carter will perhaps be remembered most for his perceived incompetence, an impression produced largely by his inability to forge coalitions in Congress, and by his failure as an 'outsider' to intervene effectively in the established policy-making processes in Washington. In his farewell address, Carter alluded to what he believed to be the source of his troubles – the fragmentation of power and decision-making exploited by influential special interests. Carter believed that he was trapped in a web of organized groups allied with well-placed congressional and bureaucratic sympathizers seeking to protect their narrowly defined interests and frustrating his own broader vision of the public good.