2. Deil S. Wright, Susan Webb, & Christine Kelleher Christine Kelleher Deil S. Wright, Susan Webb, & Christine Kelleher Christine Kelleher

3. Presentation Overview 1)Welfare Reform in Context 2)Tracking County Responses to Welfare Reform Project 3)Selected Survey Results 4)A New Look at Devolution in Sub-national Government 1)Welfare Reform in Context 2)Tracking County Responses to Welfare Reform Project 3)Selected Survey Results 4)A New Look at Devolution in Sub-national Government

4. Welfare Reform in Context What isdevolution?What is devolution? “…The movement of authority and responsibility for public policies and services from a national to a local level of government.” (Kellogg Foundation Website) 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act 1997 NC legislation allowed selected counties to develop/administer county-specific policies What isdevolution?What is devolution? “…The movement of authority and responsibility for public policies and services from a national to a local level of government.” (Kellogg Foundation Website) 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act 1997 NC legislation allowed selected counties to develop/administer county-specific policies

5. Devolution in North Carolina 1)State Goals (e.g. caseload reduction) 2)Block Grants a)All counties received block grant funds. b)Each county devised a plan to dispense their block grant funds in accordance with state welfare reform goals. 3)Standard versus Electing Counties a)Standard counties follow the state plan. b)Electing counties could (but didn’t) determine welfare requirements, including eligibility and benefit levels. 1)State Goals (e.g. caseload reduction) 2)Block Grants a)All counties received block grant funds. b)Each county devised a plan to dispense their block grant funds in accordance with state welfare reform goals. 3)Standard versus Electing Counties a)Standard counties follow the state plan. b)Electing counties could (but didn’t) determine welfare requirements, including eligibility and benefit levels.

6. The North Carolina Response Administrators & politicians tout welfare reform successes --  caseloads ;  former recipients working Opponents challenge successes --  demand on communities;  caseloads not due to reforms Most challenging aspect of reform yet to take place -- future state and county welfare policy decisions Administrators & politicians tout welfare reform successes --  caseloads ;  former recipients working Opponents challenge successes --  demand on communities;  caseloads not due to reforms Most challenging aspect of reform yet to take place -- future state and county welfare policy decisions

7. Project Goal To understand better the decentralization of policy-making powers and autonomy in North Carolina counties after the “devolution” of power by the 1996 National and 1997 State legislation

8. 23 Focus Counties Phase 1 UNCW UNCG NCCU NCSU ECU UNCP UNCC UNC-CH UNCA WCU ASU Project Information Project Information

9. Phase 2 – Survey of County Officials –99/100 Counties Responding –County Commissioners (29%) –County Managers (65%) –DSS Directors (67%) –DSS Board Chairs (65%) –Work First Administrators (70%) Phase 2 – Survey of County Officials –99/100 Counties Responding –County Commissioners (29%) –County Managers (65%) –DSS Directors (67%) –DSS Board Chairs (65%) –Work First Administrators (70%) Project Information (continued) Project Information (continued) $$ Phase 3 – $ Tracking the Money $

10. Pre- 19971997-19981999-2000

11. 1995-1996Future2000

12. 1995-19962000 Future

15. The Case Study Report Instrument A systematic effort to uncover unifying themes across all 23 case studies. Selected Findings… 91% of case studies indicated counties had more flexibility with resources since the ’97 reforms. 100% of case studies pointed to the importance of reducing welfare rolls and increasing workforce participation. A systematic effort to uncover unifying themes across all 23 case studies. Selected Findings… 91% of case studies indicated counties had more flexibility with resources since the ’97 reforms. 100% of case studies pointed to the importance of reducing welfare rolls and increasing workforce participation.

16. Devolution: A General Theory Past Research Previous focus on legislative enactment of devolution. Our contribution provides a new approach to studying devolution in conjunction with its implications for policy change. Past Research Previous focus on legislative enactment of devolution. Our contribution provides a new approach to studying devolution in conjunction with its implications for policy change.

17. The Theoretical Model Problem on the Policy Agenda Legislators use devolution as a policy solution Power is devolved to sub-national government Sub-national government is empowered Innovative Policy Making New Policy Outcome

18. Testing the Model Dependent Variables 1. Perceived Achievement of Caseload Reduction by county Source: Survey results from NC County Officials (2000) 2. Actual Percent Caseload Change (1997-2000) by county Source: Work First Report Card (2000) Dependent Variables 1. Perceived Achievement of Caseload Reduction by county Source: Survey results from NC County Officials (2000) 2. Actual Percent Caseload Change (1997-2000) by county Source: Work First Report Card (2000)

19. Testing the Model Unemployment Change (1997-2000) Economic Standing (1=Most Economically Distressed … 5= Most Prosperity) Unemployment Change (1997-2000) Economic Standing (1=Most Economically Distressed … 5= Most Prosperity) Electing versus Standard (1=Electing, 0=Standard) Did NC Counties Receive Increased Authority in Welfare Reform? (Percent “Yes” Measured) Welfare Reform Significance BEFORE 1997 (One a Scale from 1-7 with 1=Low Significance…7=High Significance) Welfare Reform Significance AFTER 1997 (One a Scale from 1-7 with 1=Low Significance…7=High Significance) Electing versus Standard (1=Electing, 0=Standard) Did NC Counties Receive Increased Authority in Welfare Reform? (Percent “Yes” Measured) Welfare Reform Significance BEFORE 1997 (One a Scale from 1-7 with 1=Low Significance…7=High Significance) Welfare Reform Significance AFTER 1997 (One a Scale from 1-7 with 1=Low Significance…7=High Significance) Core Independent Variables

20. Table 1. Model of Devolution Outcomes

21. Table 2. Model of Devolution Outcomes

22. Future Steps… Multi-level modeling, including county officials. New dependent variables, operationalizing other perceived and achieved welfare reform outcomes. Adding more detailed measures of county-specific innovations in social service policy (e.g. financial data). Shift focus from devolution to welfare policy in general. Multi-level modeling, including county officials. New dependent variables, operationalizing other perceived and achieved welfare reform outcomes. Adding more detailed measures of county-specific innovations in social service policy (e.g. financial data). Shift focus from devolution to welfare policy in general.