PDF - A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis

Chapter.3 Evenwhenarmedwith this much greaterscientific knowledge,contemporary societieswill, of course,face difficult choicesbetweensimultaneously held but competingvaluesor objectives.... The precisebalancebetweenade- quacyand equity in the determinationof social insurancebenefits,between equalaccessto minimumsecurityand retentionof the principleof localau- tonomy,betweenthe interestsof differentsocialclassesin allocatingthecosts of social security measures,or betweenthe claims of family obligationand responsibilitiesto the widercommunityillustratethe natureof theseultimate and difficult valuechoices.Yetwhile there is no guaranteethat democracies will act rationallyin formulatingtheir socialpolicies,it is alsoabundantly clear that theycannotevenbe expectedto do so unlessthey are madeawareof the full implicationsof the choicesavailableto them. EvelineM. Burns SocialSecurityand Public Policy,NY:McGraw-Hill,1956. Traditionally, courses in social welfare policy have emphasized the study of process and performance. In courses organized around process, stu- dents have learned about social, political, and technical processes in policy formulation, and in courses organized around performance they have learned about the details of social welfare programs in operation. A major advantage of the study of performance is its focus on factual and substantive material: it describes and evaluates programs. Here, too, lies its major shortcoming: The substance of social welfare programs is continually changing. Moreover, these programs are so numerous that one or two courses can cover only a segment of the field. Under the Title XX Amendments to the Social Secwity Act alone, for example, states offer more than 20 different categories of service (see Table 3.1). As indicated in Chapter 1, a third approach to the study of this field is to focus on the set of fundamental social policy choices that have to be ad- dressed in planning the welfare state. From this perspective the analytic task is to distinguish among and to dissect the essential components of policy de- sign rather than to examine the sociopolitical processes through which policy Table 3.1 Title XX Social Service Categories AdoptionServices HousingServices CaseManagement Independent/TransitionalLivingServices Congregate Meals Informationand Referral Counseling Services LegalServices ayCare(Adults) Pregnancyand Parenting Care(Children) Prevention/Intervention (At-RiskFamilies) ProtectiveServices(Adult) mentServices ProtectiveServices(Child) PlanningServices RecreationalServices reServices(Adults) ResidentialTreatment CareServices(Children) SpecialServices(Disabled} elatedServices SpecialServices(Youth) -BasedServices SubstanceAbuseServices liveredMeals Transportation A Fra111ework for Social WelfarePolicyAnalysis is developed or to evaluate policy outcomes. The basic components of policy designto which this task is addressed may be seen as dimensions of choice. In this chapter, we present a framework for analyzing basic choices in the design of social welfare policy. With this analytic approach, we will use program descriptions as examples to formulate and substantiate general concepts of policy design. Because we are mainly interested in illustrating the concepts that are useful in the analysis of social welfare policy, rather than in understanding the details of specific programs,there will be a certain eclecticism in the selection of these examples; we include large and small programs, pieces of programs, existing programs, and proposed programs, some of which may never leave the drawing boards and others that have not yet arrived on the public agenda. As Eveline Burns has suggested, the major advantage of this approach is that it equips students with a convenient set of concepts that can usefully explain and illuminate a wide range of policies. 1 The broad application of our analytic framework is conveyed through the use of historical examples, such as the War on Poverty and Model Cities Programs of the 1960s, the Older Americans Act, and the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Ex- periments of the 1970s, along with the more recent developments in welfare reform under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcilia- tion Act of 1996. An analytic framework is an intellectual tool that helps to order reality by culling and distilling the essential elements of complex phenomena. Before elaborating the analytic framework around which this book is organized, let us say a few words about the general character of social welfare policy-our conceptual foundation on which the framework is constructed. BENEFITALLOCATIONS IN THE SOCIAL MARKETAND THE MIXED ECONOMY OF WELFARE In trying to construct an analytic framework that will help us understand the vast array of social welfare measures ranging from the Social Security Act of 1935to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, we must grapple with the question: What are the common elements in social welfare policies? There is no single answer to this question with which everyone engaged in policy analysis will agree. Obviously, the appar- ent commonalities in the design of social welfare policy vary according to the level of abstraction on which the analysis is conducted. In this respect, an analytic framework is somewhat like a microscope; it provides a conceptual lens through which the phenomena under investigation may be studied. Like a microscope, most analytic frameworks do not have a wide depth of focus. Rather, they tend to lock on some level of abstraction that magnifies and draws our attention to a distinct set of concepts. The analytic framework we use in this book places social welfare policy in the context of a benefit-allocation mechanism functioning outside the economic marketplace. As Marshall has observed, 62 ChaptRr3 THE SOCIALMA~l{ETOF THE THE ECONOMICMARKETOF WELFARE STATE CAPITALISTSOCIETY Public Sector PtfvaleSector r. ---- i OlroctplOYlslooof tranllM Informal ServlcH by Services by Good services by federal,stile, andlocal auppotts by voluntary profit-making producod and government lnc:lrectttansfers lomllyand (nonprofit) 1gencl11 distributed by profit llw'oughlax lxpt~res fr11nd1 eg1ncl11 making1nterprl1t1 Regulato,ylflnlllra f I Figure 3.1 Social and Economic Markets ofWelfare. supersede the market by taking goods and services out of it, or in some way to control and modify its operations so as to produce a result which it would not have produced itself.2 To say that social welfare allocations are made outside the economic mar- ketplace offers a rather nebulous picture of the conceptual domain within which social welfare policy operates. To clarify this domain we must draw a distinction between social and economic markets. This distinction rests on the principles and motives that guide the allocation of provisions. The social market of the welfare state allocates goods and services primarily in response to financialneed, dependency,altruisticsentiments, social obligations, chari- table motives, and the wish for communal security. In contrast, benefits in a capitalist society are distributed through the economic market, ideally on the basis of individual initiative, ability, productivity, and a desire for profit.3 As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the social market contains both a public and a private sector. The public sector encompasses federal, state, and local govern- ments and accounts for the largest portion of goods and services distributed in the welfare state. Provisions allocated through the private sector of the so- cial market include the informal efforts of family and friends, the services provided by voluntary agencies and, occasionally, by profit-oriented agencies. The last overlap with the activities of the economic market. which to some extent blurs the boundary between the private social welfare sector and the economicmarket. The allocation of provisions in the social market involves both the fi. nancing and the delivery of benefits, and these roles are not always per- formed by the same unit. A public agency, for example, can hire its own staff to provide daycare services for low-income mothers, or, through purchase- of-servicearrangements, it may pay to have the service provided by a vol- makingenterprise, or by members of the client's oles of public, voluntary, pro.fit-oriented, and combined. The resulting variety in the modes eswhat is commonly referred to as the mixed encies and organizations still constitute only arket,their numbers have been growing since d 1990s, proposals for the expansion of profit- ill market gained serious consideration. Even a ertReich advanced a scheme for government A Framework for Social WelfarePolicy Analysis and business partnerships aimed at integrating social welfare and economic development. Under this arrangement, Reich says, "We can expect that a sig- nificant part of the present welfare system will be replaced by government grants to businesses that agree to hire the chronically unemployed. "4 Public funds for social services such as day care, healthcare, and disability benefits wouldbe allocated to businesses, eliminating the need for government admin- istration.Joined in this way to business institutions, social welfare provisions servean important purpose by contributing to the formation of human capital. Herein lies what is certainly the strongest attraction of such alliances-they confer on welfare activities the legitimacy and value of a productive force promoting growth in the market economy. In 1998 Anthony Giddens coined the phrase "social investment state" to describe this development. 5 By 2012, there was general agreement that the welfare states which emerged after World WarII were undergoing a paradigm shift, converging on a social investment agenda. As Adalbert Evers and Anne- Marie Guillemard conclude, "regardless 'of the phrases used-the "social investment state (Jenson), the enabling PracticeBehaviorExample:Socialworkers state (Gilbert), or the active welfare state (Lister)-the distinguish,appraise,and integratemultiple welfarestate is being remolded and the founding princi- sourcesof knowledge,includingresearch- ples of the post-war arrangement are being transformed". 6 basedknowledge,andpracticewisdom. Inserting profit-oriented agencies into the welfare state and emphasizing the formation of human capital and pro- CriticalThinkingQuestion: Whatarethe costs ductivityimbues the social market with the spirit of capi- and benefitsof for-profitagenciesdeli~r talism and inclines the modus operandi of social welfare socialwelfareservices? allocationstoward that of the market economy. At present, proprietary agencies and institutions are prominently represented in many health and social service areas, including homesupport services such as attendant care, transportation, meals-on-wheels, childcare,and job training. 7 One conspicuous area of growth has been in nurs- ing home care. Whereas about one-half of nursing home costs are paid with public (mainly Medicaid) funds, over three-quarters of all nursing homes are operatedon a for-profit basis. 8 As noted, this service area is typically referred to as the nursing home "industry," For many, of course, mixing welfare services with the market economy runs counter to the communal and charitable ethos that typifies the human- istic character of social welfare. The merger of welfare programs and private enterpriseassumes a harmony among social and economic purposes that is far fromself-evident. Reward for merit and productivity is hardly consonant with support for benefits based on need and dependency. A system that encourages risk taking for financial gain is unlikely to invest serious effort in the pursuit of equality and security. The fundamental issue is how a capitalist society deals with conflicting objectives such as meeting need versus rewarding merit, pro- moting freedom versus providing security, and providing equality of opportu- nity versus ensuring equality of outcome. The functioning of the social and economic markets in industrialized capi- talist societies is based on a complex relationship between individual ambi- tions and collective responsibilities, a relationship that is filled with tensiqna and contradictions. Marshall suggests that these tensions help maintain a co structive balance between charitable and profit-making impulses (or need merit) and so contribute to a healthy society. 9 It is difficult to imaginethat a balance might be improved by an influx of profit-oriented agencies mercialize the social market. 64 Chapter3 Some analysts argue that because social welfare policies entail benefit al- The overall rise in locations outside the market, they provide for unilateral exchange or "social federal expenditures transfers" (from society to the individual) rather than reciprocal or "market can be seen as exchange" (from buyer to seller). 10 Although we will analyze social policies a quantitative as unilateral designs for allocating benefits that are usually free or well sub- sidized, it should be recognized that those on the receiving end often incur backdrop to a stringent obligations. As Zald points out, "Although many welfare recipients significant qualitative may not pay money for the service that they receive, they may pay much more: transformation. gratitude, political acquiescence, and the like. Thus the lack of reciprocity de- pends on specification of coin. "11 Indeed, since the 1990s, a new emphasis has emerged focusing on the responsibilities associated with citizen claims to social benefits. In public discourse on social policy, a central question has been, If social benefits consti- tute the rights of citizenship, what responsibilities accompany these rights?12 Lawrence Mead's analysis of the social obligations of citizenship opened the debate about how to weigh citizens' rights to public aid against the obliga- tions to perform as dependable members of the community. 13 According to Mead, the entitlement to benefits should be conditioned on the performance of appropriate behaviors, such as working in available jobs, contributing to the support of their families, learning enough in school to be employable, and respecting the law. Capsule 3.1 Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Perspective A mericanmen,women,andchildrenaremem- bersof manycommunities-families;neighbor- hoods;innumerable social,religious,ethnic,work personaland civic responsibilities,alongwith an ap- preciationof our own rightsand the rightsof others; wherewe developthe skills of self-government as place,andprofessional associations; andthe body well as the habit of governingourselves,and learnto politic itself. Neitherhumanexistencenor individual serveothers-not just self. libertycanbesustainedfor longoutsidethe interde- A communitarianperspectiverecognizesthat pendentandoverlapping communitiesto whichall communitiesand polities,too, haveobligations- of us belong.Norcananycommunitylongsurvive includingthe duty to be responsiveto their members unlessits members dedicatesomeof their attention, and to fosterparticipationand deliberationin social energy,andresources to sharedprojects.Theexclu- and political life. sivepursuitof privateinteresterodesthe networkof A communitarianperspectivedoes not dictate socialenvironments on whichweall depend,and is particular policies; rather it mandatesattention destructiveto oursharedexperimentin democratic to what is often ignored in contemporarypolicy self-government. Forthesereasons,we holdthat the debates:the social side of human nature; the rightsof individualscannotlongbe preservedwith- responsibilitiesthat must be borne by citizens, out a communitarian perspective. individually and collectively, in a regimeof rights; A communitarian perspectiverecognizesboth the fragile ecologyof families and their support- individualhumandignityandthe socialdimension ing communities; the ripple effects and long-term of humanexistence. consequencesof present decisions. The political Acommunitarian perspectiverecognizes that the viewsof the signers of this statement differ widely. preservation of individuallibertydependson the ac- We are united, however,in our conviction that a tJvemaintenance of the institutionsof civil society communitarian perspective must be brought to er.e:citizens learnrespectfor othersas well as bear on the great moral, legal, and social issuesof arct;whereweacquirea livelysenseof our our time. mCommunitarian Platform. Usedbypermission of the InstituteforCommunitarian PolicyStudies. A Frameworkfor Social WelfarePolicy Analysis ELEMENTSOF AN ANALYTICFRAMEWORK: DIMENSIONSOF CHOICE Although entitlements to welfare are increasingly being joined to individual responsibilities, benefits remain social transfers allocated outside the economic marketplace. Within the benefit-allocation framework, social welfare policies can be interpreted as choices among principles determining what benefits are offered, to whom they are offered, how they are delivered, and how they are financed. The elements of this framework, of course, are not physical structures of the sort a microscope might reveal. Rather, they are social constructs that are used in the intellectual processes of making choices. The major dimensions of choice in this framework may be expressed in the form of four questions: 1. What are the bases of social allocations? 2. What are the types of social provisions to be allocated? 3. What are the strategies for the delivery of these provisions? 4. What are the ways to finance these provisions? A few words are in order about the genesis of this approach. Eveline Burns utilized this general framework in her seminal study, Social Security and Pub- lic Policy,focusing on four types of decisions that informed program design in the realm of social security: (1) those related to the nature and amount of ben- efits; (2) those concerned with eligibility and the types of risks to be covered; (3) those regarding the means of finance; and (4) those relevant to the structure and character of administration. Our analytic approach in this book seeks to extendthe pathways of policy anal- ysis charted by Burns and others. 14 These dimensions of choice cut across the entire field of social welfare policy PracticeBehaviorExample:Socialwork- rather than simply delineating choices specific to a single ers substantivelyand effectivelypreparefi program sector. action with individuals,families,groups, We treat the bases of social allocations, types of social organizations, and communities. provisions, strategies of delivery, and modes of finance as "dimensions" of choice because each will be examined CriticalThinkingQuestion: Howdo social along three axes: (1) the range of alternatives within each political,or economicforcesinfluence dimension, (2) the social values that support them, and policychoicesthat comprisethe ana (3) the theories or assumptions that underlie them. This framework? framework is illustrated in Figure 3.2. Allocation Figure3.2 Dimensions ofChoice. Chapter 3.. 66. ocations and Provisions Choices Regarding All.. e expressed 1n the question, Who gets first two dimensions of choice. ar ddress the "who " of socia 1we lfare policy The "alallocations a fb what?The bases of soc1 ·nclude some designation o eneficia- Social welfare policies alwbaysnh1 anced through policy implementation ries those whose we are i If ·s to e e d to serve the abstract interests of soci- Although these policies. are..suJJf:~nterest") direct and immediate benefits ety as a whole (the elusi~e P.ally among segments of the population. So. are usually distributed d1fferenti not help everybody equally. Choices are of course, cial welfare po1ic1es,. all can made as trade-of fs among w ha t po1·icy plan. required, and they are continu. Y mstances necessitate, and what the public ners think is desirable, what c1rcu will countenance:. e used to determine who is eligible for social provi- Numerous arlude marital status, employment status, residence, sions. These cntena me d tion military service, ethnicity, gender, reli- family size, health, age, e uca ·n e'xamining the bases of social allocations Our concern 1 ' gion, and mcome. th many possibilities that may be employed to 1 however,. i~ to cata ogth/issues of choice we address focus on a set of gen~ral principles t soc!al all~cations_~e e ~x ;~°;:e define eh~ibi~ity. R: t b~r,f 0 the design of eligibility criteria. The bases of choices among the various principles upon made accessible to particular people and groups which social provisions are in society 1 !locations are the gm·ae1·mes for th e opera ti ona1 defi The bases of socia a 1 'bl ·.. of e11g1 ruhon. 'b'l't 1 1 y cr'teri'a l What benefits people become 1 e 1g1.. e toI receive. 1· hoi·ces about the nature of the soc1a prov1s10n. n policy mvo 1ves po icy c fi ff d · analysis the traditional choice has been whether bene ts are o ere m cash 1..:-d (goods or services) There are, however, other types of hen- ( money) or m-1uH.. efits that are commonly distributed t~o?gh social policy, such as vouchers, power, and opportunities that permit different degrees of consumer saver-. ty than the in-cash/in-kind dichotomy. In Chapter 5, we analyze the range eign of alternatives in this dimension of choice. · Our ob'Jective 1s t o d'1st1ngms h the various forms of social provision and their implications fo~ consu~~rs of so- cial welfare benefits. Thus questions about the nature of socwl proviswns refer to the kinds of benefits that are delivered. Choices Regarding Delivery and Finance The third dimension of choice addresses alternative strategies for delivering social provisions. Here the choices are not about "who" and "what," but rather about "how." That is, after decisions about the "who" and "what" of policy are resolved, arrangements must be made for getting the provisions selected to the eligible consumers. The ways delivery systems are designed to achieve this objective are of crucial significance to the first two dimensions of choice because it is through the delivery mechanism that policy guidelines regarding eligibility and the nature of provision are operationally expressed. Broadly speaking, benefit delivery strategies refer to the alternative organizational ar- rangements among providers and consumers of social welfare benefits in the context of l?cal community systems (i.e., neighborhood, city, and county), the level at which the overwhelming majority of providers and consumers come together. A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 67 Consider, for example, a proposal for new job counseling services. Should they be centrally located in a downtown facility or dispersed in small neigh- borhood units? Should counselors be trained professionals or local residents? Should the services be offered if they duplicate similar services that already exist? Should they be incorporated under a unified administrative umbrella that includes related education and transportation services? Should the ser- vices be provided by a government agency, a nonprofit organization, or a profit- making organization? These choices all influence who gets served and the type of benefits they receive, policies about the nature of provisions and bases of allocations notwithstanding. In examining the design of delivery systems, one usually discusses strate- gies to enhance the flow of services from providers to consumers, a point to which much of the literature in this area is addressed. Since the federal social service reductions of the 1980s, however, increasing attention has been given to strategies for rationing services and for contracting publicly funded activities to private agencies. When we examine this dimension of choice in Chapter 6, we will analyze strategies for facilitating service delivery, as well as consider- ations of public versus private auspices. If social welfare policies are viewed as benefit-allocation mechanisms functioning outside the marketplace, choices must also be made concerning the sources and types of financing. It is important to recognize the distinction between funding benefits and delivering them. To clarify where funding ends and delivery begins, it is helpful to think in terms of a simple flow chart. Fund- ing choices involve questions concerning the source of funds and the fashion in which funds flow from the point of origin to the point of provision. Delivery choices involve the organizational arrangements that move social provisions, either in cash or other forms, from providers to consumers. Some of the major financing alternatives concern whether money is de- rived from public, private, or mixed sources; the level of government involved; and the types of taxes levied. Financing also involves the administrative con- ditions that govern funding arrangements, such as grant-in-aid formulas, and the "strings" attached to aid. This dimension of choice will be examined in Chapters 7 and 8. Although the dimensions of allocation, provision, delivery, and finance will be analyzed separately in the following chapters, each with its own range of alternatives, it should be emphasized that most decisions are in- terdependent in the design of social welfare policies. For instance, a de- centralized delivery system results when the social provision is in the form of power, as in policies for greater parental control of local education that aim to transfer decision-making authority from professional bureaucracies to service consumers. Similarly, the bases of social allocations, methods of finance, and delivery of service are closely interwoven when eligibility for benefits involves some form of conditionality such as work-related require- ments and payments, as in subsidized user charges and contributory social insurance. These four dimensions of choice encompass fundamental issues in the design of social welfare policies. The process through which these issues are resolved raises a different set of choices, choices that concern the design of de- cision-making arrangements and the extent to which they emphasize the roles of political leadership, citizen participation, and professional expertise, issues thatwill be discussed in Chapter 6. 68 Clwpter3 AN EXAMPLE:THETRANSFORMATION OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES At this point, we will tie the dimensions of choice to a concrete case so the reader can see how the framework is applied. The selected case involves the evolution of social services since the early 1960s.15 The focus is on social ser- vice provisions originally established under several titles of the Social Security Act: Titles I (Old Age Assistance [OAA]), IV-A (Aid to Families With Depen- dent Children [AFDC]),X (Aid to the Blind [AB]),and XIV (Aid to the Perma- nently and Totally Disabled [APTD]).Incorporated into Title XX of the Social Security Act in 1974, these provisions were refashioned into their current form in 1981 as the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG).There are, of course, other sources from which social services emanate, such as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980; the Older Americans Act, first legislated in 1965; and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The reason that the SSBG has been selected as the focal point of analysis is that it provides a considerable source of funds and it delegates the fundamental choices determining their use to state and local governments. Any discussion of developments in the social services over the last forty years must consider the evolution of federal spending in this area. The 1962 Social Security Act amendments were the first to give specific emphasis to the role of the social services in public assistance. Between 1962 and 1972, federal grants to states for social services grew from approximately $194 million to $1.7 billion annually, a rather significant, and largely unanticipated, increase. When state estimates for 1973 indicated a potential increase to $4.7 billion, Congress, which until then had largely ignored the program, took action, en- acting a $2.5 billion ceiling on federal expenditures. 16 This ceiling on social service funding rose for a while but was reduced to $2.4 billion in 1981 when social services funding was reconsidered and redesigned as the SSBG, also known as Title XX of the Social Security Act. Since then, federal spending has gradually eroded to its current level of $1.7 billion a year. Although it is important to appreciate the growth of federal Title XX fund- ing as a force in the general development of social services, the focus of this case study is on the substantive program changes that have accompanied the changing levels of federal support. In this analysis, the overall rise in federal expenditures can be seen as a quantitative backdrop to a significant qualitative transformation. Numerous changes in the nature of the social services have occurred since they first gained solid financial support in 1962. There has been a consistent broadening of eligibility standards and an enlargement of the population receiving services. In 1962, eligibility was limited to public assistance re- cipients, former recipients, and others who, in light of their precarious life cir- cumstances, were potential candidates for public assistance. The government defined "potential recipients" as those who might reasonably be expected to require financial aid within one year of their application for services. Whereas these standards offered the possibility of extending services beyond the imme- diate public assistance population, it was not realized in practice. At that early stage,both program funds and trained social service workers were in relatively short supply. Because political support for the 1962 amendments was predi- catedon the idea that intensive social work services would reduce the size of recipient population clearly held first priority on A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 69 service allocations. Despite those immediate limitations, the possibility of ex- tending service eligibility was established in principle. This principle was applied in the Social Security Act amendments of 1967. Under these amendments, individuals became eligible for social services if it was determined that they might become welfare recipients within the next five years. Even more significant was the introduction of the concept of "group eligibility," whereby residents of low-income neighborhoods and other groups (such as those in institutional settings) could become eligible for service. By 1972, people who were not receiving welfare were well represented among the social service clientele, and their number was growing. One rea- son for this was that the 1967 amendments had provided a loophole through which states could squeeze many locally funded services into the federal pro- gram, where they became eligible for 7 5 percent cost reimbursement. The Title XX Amendments of 1974 ushered in a new set of eligibility cri- teria that further extended entitlements. Under the enactment, the federal gov- ernment designated three categories of people who were eligible for services: (1) income maintenance recipients, (2) income eligibles, and (3) universal eli- gibles. Income maintenance recipients were those receiving public assistance, including Supplementary Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid; these recipi- ents are poor according to already-existing means-tested standards. Title XX regulations required each state to target at least 50 percent of its federal funds for people in this category. Income-eligible recipients included those who earned up to 115 percent of their state's median income. States could offer services free of charge to those whose income did not exceed 80 percent of the state median. For those earning between 80 and 115 percent of the median, services could be offered on a subsidized basis for reasonable income-related fees. The universal category referred to services that were available free of charge to all without regard to income: information and referral services, pro- tective services for children and adults, and family planning. In 1978, a fourth category, group eligibility, was added. This category allowed states to desig- nate groups of people with similar characteristics-for example, the elderly and the institutionalized mentally ill-as service eligible if it could be shown that 75 percent of the group's members had incomes less than 90 percent of the state's median income. When Ronald Reagan's 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act super- seded Title XX with the SSBG, federal eligibility requirements were eliminated altogether, leaving states free to exercise whatever standards of eligibility they desired. Despite the discretion afforded them, however1most states continue to employ much the same eligibility standards as before. 17 As eligibility restrictions were eliminated, the scope and content of social provisions changed. Social services were originally advanced in 1962 as a way to prevent and reduce dependency; intensive social casework services would presumablyrehabilitate the poor, changing their behavior in ways that would help them become economically independent. 18 Social services also included !J:J.tr basic formsof provision such as homemakers and foster-home care; how- thae@sentialfeature was the provision of social casework. Although this t 1uicifiedin the law, "welfare professionals in the Bureau of Family ewmoreor less what they meant by 'services.1 At a minimum, it M \,y a trained social worker. 1119 'ble quality about casework service that makes the exact ~milt to specify. This vagueness has led to the cynical "j, anythingdone for, with, or about the client by 70 Chapter3 d.15 sses a child's progress in school with an AFDC mother, a check 15 made r the social worker. If a soci~ worker rr 'services related to education....' ~t father and possible reconciliation, When the discussion rums.to~~ a ~em.ily and improving family function- a check is made under 'mamtamingd ~ollingsworth characterized public as- ing.'" 20 In a similar vein, Handler an 1 u·vely infrequent, pleasant chat."21 "l 'ttl more than a re a. d. sistance services as 1 e k. rtainly 8 more skillful an nurturmg en- At its best, social casewor is cet But large caseloads, the demands of el- terprise than thes~ comm~ntssi:gge:O establish a casework relationship), the igibility certification (while ?~g 0 did not need or want casework services diversity of clientele (many O )w : the omnipresent bureaucratic regulations but were forced to accept tbem 'an d , e to effective practice... hardly con uc1v of public assistance were. owers and benefits, social casework was not a In any event, whate;;~ts Pf almost one million recipients to the public cur_efor poverty. The a 96~n od 1966 dramatically proved this point. assistance rolls between 1 an. d ndency combined with social case- The failure to reduce economic ape... 'bl al'ty ade these services a prime target of congressional work's rntang1 equ 1 m s · I secunty · Act.. dis1l1us10n, a di s1·11usrnn that was reflected in the 1967. d ociaTh amendments, un der w h IC h casework was deemphasize. I B f amend-.. e 1967 ments opened th e way for a b roader conception. of soc1a services. ek ore,22fed- eral grants for services mai'nly paid the salaries of soc1a1 casewor. ers. In 967 amendments "created such a comprehensive array of spe- contras t , th e 1. f d all b bl "23 cific services that literally almost any service was e er y.re1m ursa ~· At th e ti·me oreater emphasis was placed on the delivery of services eresam ' o social casework. Accor di ng to Derth'1ck , "a d'1st'mction tangible than. iar mo d'. Ad. d soon began to develop between soft' and 'har services. vice an coun- seling from a caseworker were 'soft'... and presumably less valuable than day-care centers, or drug treatment centers, ~r work 1;aining, which_ were 'hard'" and which soon became much more widely available. She continues, "the ~hanged conception and changed social ~o?text helped la.y the b~sis for granting funds for a much wider range of activity than the daily routmes of caseworkers. "24 With the passage of the 1974 social service amendments, the movement to- ward services diversification reached new heights. Under Title XX, each state was free to support whatever social services it deemed appropriate for its com- munities. The only requirement was that these services be directed to one of five federally specified goals, goals that were so broadly stated as to encompass almost anything the imagination of social service planners could devise. In the first year of implementation, Title XX plans for the 50 states and the District of Columbia specified a total of 1313 distinct services. 25 The substantive range of services is illustrated in Table 3.1, which shows services grouped into 28 categories devised by the federal government for pur- poses of tabulation and analysis. Whereas many federal reporting requirements and regulations were eliminated in the 1981 conversion from the "old" Title XX to the "new" SSBG,there have recently been new requirements mandating annual reports, uniform definitions of services, and specific information on the nu~ber of people receivi~g se~ ces, the amount of SSBG funds going for each serv1ce, methods of service delivery, and criteria for eligibility. Today, some states offer the full range of services, whereas a few use all of their funds to support just.one or two services. Some states have also attempted to mesh Title XX funds with other federal, state, and local social service dollars in order to consolidatetheir servicesandbudgetaryplanning.2a A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 71 Along with the increasing emphasis on tangible services and the diver- sification of social service content, a profound change in the purpose of the social services was taking place. The 1962 services were almost exclusively aimed at reducing poverty; under Title XX there developed a service network of broad scope largely concerned with maintenance and care, directed more at enhancing human development and the general quality of life than at reduc- ing economic dependency.27 The first major step in this direction was the 1967 divorce of income-maintenance functions from social service functions in the public assistance program. 28 In 1977, this administrative separation was rein- forced at the federal level by placing income-maintenance programs under the Social Security Administration and joining-social service and human develop- ment programs under the Office of Human Development Services. This trend is reflected in Title XX's current emphasis on services that are not associated with notions of personal deficiency or inadequate character, such as transpor- tation and meals-on-wheels for the elderly, homemaker services for the dis- abled, and day care for children of all backgrounds. Along with the separation of financial aid from the provision of social services, responsibility for the delivery of services became more dispersed through the increasing use of purchase-of-service arrangements between pub- lic agencies and social service providers in the private sector. Under the 1962 amendments, state public assistance agencies were enjoined from using fed- eral funds to purchase services directly from voluntary agencies. It was pos- sible, however, to purchase these services indirectly, with grants to other public agencies, which could then "contract out." Opportunities for purchase of services from private sources were significantly broadened when the 1967 Social Security amendments authorized purchase arrangements for a wide ar- ray of activities. Although the amendments allowed state agencies to purchase services directly from private agencies, private-agency donations could not be used as the states' 25 percent matching share if those contributions reverted to the donor's facility. 29 This restriction was lifted in 1974. The growing reliance of voluntary agencies on government funding was seen by some as a trend that robbed the voluntary sector of its traditional independence. Over the last three decades, Title XX's flexible service delivery provisos generated an enormous expansion in the systematic use of public funds to purchase private/voluntary services. Given the virtual elimination of federal reporting requirements in the 1981 SSBG, it is difficult to calculate the pre- cise magnitude of purchase arrangements. It is estimated, however, that federal funds provide about 50 percent of all financial support for services provided by nonprofit agencies. 30 These changes in the scope and delivery of provisions were accompa- nied by basic reforms in federal financing. Under the 1962 laws, federal fi- nancing was open ended, with the states reimbursed for 75 percent of social service costs to recipients in the four public assistance categories: the aged, the blind, the disabled, and families with dependent children. The 1967 amendments expanded the range of services and clientele that might qualify dei;alfunds. With this expansion the definitions of "social services" ~t-eligibility standards were loosely drawn. Whether a particular aertainclients qualified for federal reimbursement was depen- m on local interpretation rather than on a clearly defined :the most enterprising states made the boldest interpreta- test need, and received the largest proportional share ial services. In the states' scuffle for federal funds, 72 Chapter3 grantsmanship was the name of the game. Three states-New York, Illinois, and California-were the biggest winners, together receiving 58 percent of federal grants in 1972. 31 This open-ended approach to financing underwent fundamental re- visions with the 1974 Title XX amendments. The new legislation incor- porated the social service provisions originally financed under the four public assistance categories (Titles I, IV-A,X, and XIV of the Social Secu- rity Act) into a single grant (Title XX) program. With the $2.5 billion ceil- ing that Congress placed on social services, financing was no longer open ended. This limitation ushered in a change in allocative procedures that tied federal allotments to a formula based strictly on state population. Each state was thereby entitled to a proportional share of Title XX funds, but the receipt of these funds was contingent on meeting certain regulations and supplying a local matching share. When the SSBG was enacted in 1981, the local share requirement was dropped along with most other federal regulations. SSBG allocations continue on a population basis, spreading funds in a way that yields a rough form of interstate equalization. How- ever, this mode of finance is not especially sensitive to the greater needs of poorer states. APPLICATIONOF THE FRAMEWORK Now let us superimpose the dimensions of choice on the complex social ser- vice program changes that have occurred since 1962. Our approach to policy analysis provides a way of thinking about this program that extracts and organizes its major elements, making the whole more readily comprehen- sible. Using the framework we have outlined, the substance of social service policy may be divided into our four choice categories, which are summa- rized as follows: 1. The bases of social allocations: Selective to universal. In 1962, eligibility for social services was means-tested, effectively lim- ited to recipients of the four categorical aid programs-AFDC, AB, OAA, and APTD. By 1974, eligibility criteria were broadened by the Title XX amend- ments to include many middle-income beneficiaries. The SSBG, which revised Title XX in 1981, gave the states latitude to impose any eligibility criteria they wished. Because most states continue to employ the limited re- quirements of earlier years, it would be an exaggeration to say that there is universal access to social services. Nevertheless, there has been a pronounced trend from selective toward universal access. 2. The nature of social provision: Intangible and limited to concrete and diversified. In 1962, social services consisted primarily of social casework to help families improve their functioning and gain economic independence. What these services entailed, beyond some form of psychotherapeutic counseling, wasonly vaguely defined. More tangible forms of service were established 1'981, emphasizing employment training, day care, and family planning. e1981 conversion to the SSBG, states may offer any kind of social mliltt :t990, diversification of social services had grown to ifrtlviiton, A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 73 3. The delivery system: Public and linked to income maintenance, to public, private, and commercial. Up to 1967, social service and income-maintenance functions were com bined and delivered by the same administrative unit. Caseworkers distributed financial aid and also provided social services. After 1967 these functions were, administratively divorced and performed by different workers, with an emphasis placed on hiring AFDC recipients to perform certain service roles related to day care and eligibility determination. Also, since 1975 an increased reliance on purchase-of-service arrangements by state and local governments has drawn an increasing number of private nonprofits into what was originally a delivery system of public agencies. 4. Finance: Open-ended categorical grant to fixed-amount block grant. In 1962 the federal government reimbursed states for 75 percent of all social service costs for recipients in the public assistance categories. When these services were incorporated into Title XX, a $2.5 billion expenditure ceiling (which slowly rose to $2.8 billion by 1995, declined to $2.4 billion in 1996, and is currently at $1.7 billion) was established with grants allocated to states according to a formula based strictly on population size. To qualify for grants, states were required to supply a 25 percent local match. For all practi cal purposes, Title XX amounted to a block grant. In 1981, the SSBG provided states almost complete discretion in use of these grants and no longer required matching funds or reporting or planning requirements. In specifying the dimensions of choice-the first step of a two-step pro cess in social welfare policy analysis-we ask these questions: What benefits are to be allocated, and to whom? How are these benefits to be delivered and financed? These questions may be answered without reference to purpose. So now we turn to the second step in the analytic process: the "why" question, addressing the values, theories, and assumptions that inform social choices. SOCIAL JUSTICE IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Some answers to the "why" of social choice can be found in the explication of underlying values. Alva Myrdal explains the importance of illuminating the values embedded in policy designs: An established tendency to drive values underground, to make analysis appear scientific by omitting certain basic assumptions from the discus sion, has too often emasculated the social sciences as agencies for ratio nality in social and political life. To be truly rational, it is necessary to accept the obvious principle that a social progra m, like a practical judg- ment, is a conclusion based upon premises of values as well as upon facts. 32 e analysis of values and social welfare policy may be approached from Jevels. At the broader level the analytic focus is on policy in the Jather than examining specific dimensions of choice and their s, this level of analysis addresses broad purposes. Specifi oes the policy achieve social justice? To what extent is 1&1.:reaour1Qea a fair one? At this level of generality, three Uw: "JUality, equity, and adequacy. As we 74 Chapter3 will see by examining the changing arrangements for financial aid under pub- Three core values lic assistance, these values are not always in harmony. shape the design of The main function of America's public assistance programs has been to social welfare policy provide financial assistance to the needy. When these programs were estab- to achieve social lished under the Social Security Act of 1935, three categories of needy people justice: equality, were eligible for cash aid: the elderly under Title I, OAA; dependent children under Title IV,Aid to Dependent Children (ADC);and the blind, under 'Iltle X, equity, and adequacy. AB. A fourth category was added in 1950 under Title XIV, APTD. In 1961, ADC was changed to AFDC,reflecting an emphasis on maintaining the family unit. Legislation in 1988 required the states to provide financial aid to children of unemployed parents (AFDC-UP). These four categorical programs were financed by the federal government and administered by the states, with each state contributing a matching share. A fifth public aid option, General Assistance (GA), often called General Relief, is available for individuals who do not qualify for support under the federally financed programs. Funded entirely by states and localities, GA is more parsi- monious than the federal categories with regard to the duration and amount of assistance. In 1965, a broad program of medical assistance for the poor was enacted, unifying the various arrangements for meeting medical costs that existed un- der the four categorical programs. Known as Medicaid, this program also al- lows the states to support the "medically indigent," people whose economic resources are insufficient to pay their medical costs but who do not otherwise qualify as needy for cash assistance. Through the early 1970s, Medicaid and the five categorical programs (OAA, APTD, AFDC,AB, and GA), along with food stamps, formed the general core of public assistance in this country. Within the framework established by federal legislation, the states had considerable latitude to design programs ac- cording to their own local norms and preferences. One reflection on this policy was the 20 odd different agency names used by the 50 states to designate the bureaucracies administering their public assistance programs. These included Public Welfare, Social Services, Family and Children Services, Institutions and Agencies, Human Resources, and Economic Security. More profound varia- tions existed with regard to standards of eligibility and levels of assistance. For example, under AFDC, monthly aid payments varied enormously from state to state. At the time AFDC was abolished in the mid-1990s, for example, aid for an average family ranged from $115 in Alabama to $748 in Alaska. In more than half the states, AFDCpayments equaled less than the minimum required to meet basic needs according to cost standards that these states themselves had set. Many of these differentials continue today, under the welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996. The structure of categorical public assistance was dramatically altered by the Social Security Act amendments of 1972 under which OAA, AB, and APTD were replaced by the consolidated SSI program (implemented in 1974). In contrast to the incorporation of the categorical social services under Title XX, which increased state administrative authority, the replacement of the fi- nancial aid categories by SSI brought these programs entirely under federal ~trol. Administered by the Social Security Administration and supported to- y federalfunds (although states occasionally supplement the payments), des uniformcash assistance to the needy, blind, aged, and disabled untry.Current (2012) federal payments to SSI recipients are mvidual and $1048 monthly for a couple. A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 75 Public Assistance Categories, 1962 OAA AB APTD AFDC Social Flnanclal Social Financial Social Financial Social Financial Services Assistance Services Assistance Services Assistance Services Assistance Tltle XX SSI TANF 1974 1972 1996 Implemented State Administered, 1974 Flnahced by Federal Block Grant Funds and State Federally Financed Payments and Administered Socia! Services Block Grant 1981 State Administered, Federally Financed Figure 3.3 Reorganization of Public Assistance: Social Services and Financial Aid. AFDC, as indicated in Figure 3.3, was not included in the federalization of the 1970s. Until 1996, it continued to be administered by the states under federal regulations and to be jointly financed through open-ended federal matching grants. With the passage of welfare reform, the Personal Responsibil- ity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, AFDC was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)program. This unprece- dented reform, substituting TANF block funding grant for AFDC's open-ended arrangement, effectively eliminated a national entitlement to public assistance and fulfilled President Clinton's campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it," if not exactly along the lines he envisioned. Under TANF,states receive a fixed level of federal funds to provide income support to poor families with children based on the amount spent on AFDC in 1994.33 It should be noted that because AFDC caseloads had been declining in most states, the initial post-TANF allocations were higher than the amount states would have received under AFDC.34 Future prospects, however, are un- certain. During periods of recession, for example, if caseloads rose and states ran out of block grant funds, eligible applicants for public aid might have to be denied assistance unless a state had the political will to commit its own funds to the program. To date, this has not occurred during the economic downturn from 2008 to 2012. Beyond capping the level of federal support that states might draw on to aid needy families, TANF introduced sweeping changes in the essential char- acter of public assistance-among which time-limited welfare was the most radical measure. Under TANF, states are barred from providing federal cash benefitsto families for more than a total of five years during their lifetime, al- though up to 20 percent of recipients may be exempted from the limit due to l 1111111111 1111Ill 11I I 111 1111111 I Chapter3 hardship. States must also develop plans describing how TANF recipients will engage in work activities after being on the welfare rolls for two years. In allocating financial aid outside of economic markets, public assistance programs like TANF and SSI represent an effort to alter the distribution of re- sources in society. In this effort one aim of public assistance is to further social justice-an undertaking that must come to grips with the values of equality, equity, and adequacy. Equality Although it is one of the foundation stones of social justice, equality is a value open to interpretation. At least two salient notions were differentiated by Aris- totle: numerical equality and proportional equality. 35 These concepts represent the egalitarian and meritarian elements of distributive justice. Numerical equal- ity implies the same treatment of everyone: to all an equal share. Proportional equality implies the same treatment of similar persons: to each according to his or her merit or virtue. These interpretations of equality offer conflicting pre- scriptions for the treatment of dissimilar persons. With the concept of propor- tional equality, Vlastos points out, "the meritarian view of justice paid reluctant homage to the egalitarian one by using the vocabulary of equality to assert the justice of inequality." 36 To clarify this distinction and to reduce the definitional awkwardness, we will use the term equality in its numerical sense and will subsume the meaning of proportional equality under the value of equity. Social welfare policy is influenced by the value of equality with regard to the outcome of benefit allocations. Specifically, the value prescribes that ben- efits should be allocated so as to equalize the distribution of resources and opportunities. In some policies, this value is predominant, as, for instance, in the development of quota hiring plans for the equal allocation of work roles among different groups of people. In a modified version, there are opportunity- oriented policies whereby the equal shares objective is recast in terms of equal opportunity. Fair housing legislation, for example, demands that people, what- ever their racial and ethnic characteristics, receive the same treatment in their quest for shelter. It does not, however, ensure equal results for everyone. In public assistance, the introduction of uniform federal grants under SSI was, in part, a measure to promote greater equality in financial aid across the country. The influence of the equality goal in shaping the design of public as- sistance is also evident in the extent to which money is shifted from wealthy states and individuals toward those that are poor. Although such redistribu- tion takes place through public assistance, it falls considerably short of creat- ing even a roughly equal share for all because social justice is also responsive to other values. ~uity denotes a conventional sense of fair treatment. There is a proportional ~ity to notions of fair treatment: If you do half the work, you deserve half ward. People's deservedness should be based on their contributions to modifiedonly by special considerations for those whose inability to clearlynot of their own making. Accordingly, there are many "eq- ities.,that are normatively sanctioned, as in policies that offer ent forveterans and in unemployment benefits that vary ac- 8 A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 77 In public assistance, equity is str d th bility " first formulated by th E 1· hesse rough the doctrine of "less eligi- ' Commissioners' words, e ng is Poor Law Cammiss10 ners m 1834 In th e It may tbed assumed · that. in the administrati·on of re1·ief, th e publ'ic is. warran e ~n imposing such conditions on the individual relieved, as are conducive to the benefit either of the individual himself, or of the country at l_arge,at whose expense he is to be relieved. The first and mos~essential of all conditions, a principle which we find universally a~mi~ted,_evenby those whose practice is at variance with it, is that hi~ ~1tuat10n01: the.whole shall not be made really or apparently so eligible ~s the s1tuat10n of the independent laborer of the lowest class. [Emphasis added.]37 One reason for the extremely low level of public assistance in most states is the ingrained belief that aid should not elevate the income of recipients above those of th~ poor~st workers. He~e,the emphasis on equity supports the main- tenance of mcentives to work. It 1sinteresting to note the historic shift that has taken place in the relation between incentives to work and public assistance as increasing numbers of women have entered the labor force. In the 1960s and 1970s, policymakers began a serious debate about the right of welfare mothers to collect public aid and remain at home with their children. The issue was not simply whether welfare benefits should be lower than the income one might earn in the paid labor force, but whether active measures should be employed to encourage welfare mothers to work. Reflect- ing the view that various incentives should be offered to encourage welfare recipients to seek employment, the 1967 amendments to the Social Security Act established the WIN program to provide training and employment to ''all appropriate individuals," which included welfare mothers with young chil- dren. Previously, work programs had been available on a much smaller scale mainly to fathers of families receiving aid. In addition, the provision of day- care services was authorized so that mothers would be free to work and, for an incentive, the first $30 of monthly earnings plus one-third of the remainder were exempted from determination of continued eligibility for assistance. (In 1981, the "30 plus one-third" earnings disregard was limited to only the first four months of employment, and in 1988, WIN was replaced altogether with the workfare provisions of the Family Support Act.) Around the same time that the 1967 amendments were being implemented, other proponents argued for increasing the level of AFDCbenefits for women who stayed at home. Casting this claim in the name of equity, they did not ask that dissimilar people, those who work and those who do not work, be treated equally and awarded similar standards of li~ing. Rather, the ~gument ~as made that motherhood itself should be considered an occupation-one, in- deed, more trying than most. This view was expressed by a ten-member panel (nine of whom were men) commissioned by the federal government to study the problem of U.S. workers. The panel recommended1 among other things1 that welfare mothers be subsidized to stay home and care for their children. 38 The case for this policy gains momentum when we calculate the substantial per capita costs of daycare services necessary to allow AFDC mothers the free- dom to work. 39 Recently policy analysts in the United States hav~ considered pro- viding Social Security credits for people who sp~nd time out of t~e la- bor force caring for dependent children. Such credits are well-established Chapter3 components of public pension schemes in many countries including France, Germany, and Sweden. 40 In 1984 Finland was the first country in Europe to provide cash-for-childcare benefits for children who were not enrolled in public daycare centers. Sweden and Norway introduced cash- for-childcare schemes in the 1990s.41 Through 2011, German policymakers have been debating about the introduction of a cash-for-childcare policy, dubbed the "stove" premium by opponents who see it as a scheme to rein- force traditional gender roles. 42 By 1996, in the United States, the question of whether the interests of equity were best served by providing public assistance to subsidize the home care of children or by expecting welfare mothers to seek paid employ- ment in the labor market was resolved clearly in favor of the labor market option-welfare became "workfare." Indeed, as noted, the TANF program not only expects welfare recipients to seek employment, but also sharply limits the number of years that families can receive public aid during their lifetime. The political consensus that motivated the shift from welfare to workfare was influenced in part by the more general movement of women from the household into the market economy. Steadily on the rise, the la- bor force participation rate of married women with children under eighteen more than doubled after 1960. Today, nearly three in four married moms with children have jobs. As the vast majority of mothers entered the paid workforce, it became awkwardfor even the most sympathetic welfare advo- cates to hold public assistance recipients exempt from the obligation to seek employment. Adequacy Adequacy refers to the desirability of providing a decent standard of material well-being, quite apart from concerns for whether benefit allocations are equal or differentiated according to merit. Thus, as Frankena explains, the quest for social justice involves: a somewhat vaguely defined but still limited concern for the goodness of people'slives, as well as for their equality. The double concern is of- ten referred to as respect for the intrinsic dignity or value of the human individual. This is not the position of the extreme egalitarian but it is essentially egalitarian in spirit; in any case it is not the position of the meritarian, although it does seek to accommodate his principles. 43 Standards of adequacy vary according to time and circumstances. In medieval times, serfs were usually provided with the necessities to keep them healthy and productive. At the turn of the twentieth century, $624 a year was estimated as a "living wage" for a family of five in New York City.44 Today, the most common statistic for defining adequacy is the poverty line, which is calculated annually by the U.S. Department of Labor and adjusted to familysize. In 2011, for example, a family of four with an income under the$22,350 poverty threshold was considered poor (i.e., to have a less than minimallyadequate income) (see Table 3.2). But this official standard of dequacy,while in widespread use, is considered by many to be seriously ccurate.Weexamine this issue in greater detail in Chapter 4. One ap- h1o a more generous standard of adequacy, a "basic needs budget," 'ust how much the various basics of life (food, rent, health care, erent locales. According to calculations by the Economic A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 79 Table 3.2 2011-2012 Department of Health and Buman Services (BBS) Poverty Guidelines Personsin Family Forty-EightContiguousStates Alaska Hawaii or Household and D.C. ($) ($) ($) 1 10,890 13,600 12,540 2 14,710 18,380 16,930 3 18,530 23,160 21,320 4 22,350 27,940 25,710 5 26,170 32,720 30,100 6 29,990 37,500 34,490 7 33,810 42,280 38,880 8 37,630 47,060 43,270 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011. Policy Institute, these figures ranged considerably by location, chiefly due to variations in the cost of housing and childcare. In San Francisco, a typi- cal high cost urban area, the basic needs figure was $56,124 for a single parent family with two children. In a rural area like Curry County, NM, the figure was $30,170. 45 The value of adequacy is expressed rather faintly in public assistance pol- icy honored more in the breach than in reality. Nevertheless, its presence is re- flected in the fact that grant levels are not set arbitrarily, but are based on state estimates of the costs of basic needs (even though the grants rarely approach the levels of these estimates). Overall, as a benefit-allocation mechanism, public assistance is more re- sponsive to concerns for equity than for adequacy and equality. This emphasis stems, at least in part, from the broader societal context in which the program operates. In a capitalist society, the value of equity is generally accentuated: those who work hard deserve to be rewarded by reaping the just fruits of their labor. Social democratic societies theoretically place greater stress on the value of equality. As Marx wrote, "The secret of the expression of value, namely that all kinds of labor are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are hu- man, labor in general cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equal- ity has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice." 46 Once the notion of human equality has achieved the status of a "popular prejudice," differential treatment of dissimilar people is significantly reduced if not completely abolished because, judged by the most important of characteristics-their PracticeBehaviorExample:Social workers humanness-everybody is the same. engagein practices that advancesocial and From this somewhat lofty perspective, the "why'' economicjustice. of policy design may be analyzed in terms of the quest E !f sgcialjustice as it is manifest in the differential re- CriticalThinking Question: Which reflects and equality. 47 Although a your conception of social justice to a greater ese values, the em- extent, the value of equality, equity, or of the other two adequacy?Why? social justice. 80 Chapter3 CONSERVATIVE AND PROGRESSIVE VALUES IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE · d much larger range of social values enters into the Movmg own a rung, a f d' 't consideration of choice. For instance, the value~ p~ivacy, igm Y, work, and independence may influence the criteria of ehgibihty, th e form~ of social provision, and the design of delivery and ~nance arrangements. To 11I:1strate, Table 3.3 lists the four dimensions of choice and som~ of the compe~ng val- ues that influence them. These four value dichotomies are suggestive and hardly exhaust the range of possibilities. They _were select~d beca~se the range of values represents variations on. central iss~es of pohcy choice dif- ferentiating conservatives from progressives. These issues c~ncern the ways and extent to which expressions of individual interests are given free rein or are harnessed in the service of the common good. As Marshall explains, The claim of the individual to welfare is sacred and irrefutable and par- takes of the character of a natural right... but the citizen of the Welfare State does not merely have the right to pursue welfare; he has the right to receive it, even if the pursuit has not been particularly hot. But if we put individualism first, we must put collectivism second. The Wel- fare State is the responsible promoter and guardian of the welfare of the whole community, which is something more complex than the sum total of the welfare of its individual members, arrived at by simple addition. The claims of the individual must always be defined and limited so as to fit into the complex and balanced pattern of the welfare of the commu- nity, and that is why the right to welfare can never have the full stature of a natural right. The harmonizing of individual rights with the com- mon good is a problem which faces all human societies. 48 Cost effectiveness may be applied to each dimension of choice. When ap- plied to the basis of social allocations, it is measured by the extent to which each dollar of benefit is allocated to those most in need-that is, those least able to purchase what they need in the open marketplace. The guiding thought is ~at there be no waste of resources. With the cost-effectiveness criterion, indi- vi?ual treatme~t varie~ according to individual circumstances. Implementing ~1s value r~q_mresa high degree of selectivity, of means testing, in determin- ~ng_t~ose el~g1?le~or benefits. Applied in the extreme, this value can produce mvidious distmctlons among people, dividing the community into groups of the dependent and the independent, the incompetent and the self-suffi t s_oc1a · I e1!~ctlv~ness ,-1+. c1en may take different forms. One way it is measured in al- locative dec1s10ns 1~by the extent to which all individuals are treated as equal members of the social body. Here, the notion of effectiveness is related to the Table 3.3 Dimensions of Choice and Competing Value Perspectives ConservativePerspective Dimensionsof Choice ProgressivePerspective Costeffectiveness Allocation Social effectiveness Freedomof choice Provision Social control Freedomof dissent Delivery Efficiency Localautonomy Finance Centralizati A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis 81 fact that nobody who is potentially eligible will feel inhibited about applying for benefits because of shame, stigma, or the organizational rigamarole that is of- ten required to implement selective procedures. Allocations are universal: An individual's special need or defect need not be exposed for scrutiny in order to become eligible for benefits. The "badge of citizenship" is sufficient basis for en- titlement. In what was once AFDCand is now TANF,for example, the basis of so- cial allocations-a thorough and probing means test of every applicant-is clearly influenced more by concerns for cost effectivenessthan social effectiveness.49 Titmuss has observed that the apparent strain between cost effectiveness and social effectiveness may be a function of the short-range perspective of using cost-effectiveness calculations, especially for medical benefits, where policy objectives include prevention as well as treatment. For example, if ac- cess to medical care entails a means-test investigation that is demeaning, time- consuming, or otherwise inconvenient, clients may procrastinate about seeking aid until the symptoms are so advanced that they can no longer be ignored. At this stage, the cost of treatment is usually more expensive. In the long run, cost effectiveness and social effectiveness can be brought into harmony when the universal allocation of medical care-saves more through prevention than selec- tive alloc~tions save by limiting treatment only to those in dire need. 50 Freedom of choice is reflected in provisions that offer recipients consider- able latitude to exercise their individual preferences. Thus, for example, when social provisions are in the form of cash, a high degree of consumer sovereignty is preserved. Social control, on the other hand, is reflected in provisions that limit individual choice. With in-kind provisions, recipients are restricted to the specific benefits (housing, medical care, counseling, therapy, advice, informa- tion, etc.) offered. Of course, they have the freedom to take it or leave it, but that is where the choice ends. In some social welfare programs, social provisions are linked so that freedom of choice in one area of provision is bought at the price of social control in another. This is the case in public assistance. In the original AFDCprogram, recipients were given cash grants so they could exercise a degree of choice in -meeting their daily requirements. Under the Family Support Act of 1988, AFDC benefits were linked to participation in work training programs, and, in some states, to educational programs as well. 51 By 1996, when AFDC was supplanted by the TANF, cash benefits were tied to a variety of behavioral and labor market expectations such as going to school, living at home (for un- wed teenage mothers), identifying the child's father, and, of course, getting a job. These behavioral incentives were strongly advocated and supported by conser- vatives, despite their traditional disavowal of the collectivists' conviction that government might improve the human condition through social engineering. Freedom of dissent and efficiency are values that influence whether the delivery system is designed primarily along democratic or bureaucratic lines. Blau states the choice succinctly: Bureaucratic and democratic structures can be distinguished... on the basis of the dominant organizing principle: efficiency or freedom of dissent. Each of these principles is suited for one purpose and not for another. When people set themselves the task of determining the so- cial objectives that represent the interests of most of them, the crucial problem ,is to provide an opportunity for all conflicting viewpoints to be heard. In contrast, when the task is the achievement of given social objectives, the essential problem to be solved is to discover the efficient, not the popular, means for doing so.52 82 Chapter 3 In TANF, the delivery system is organized primarily along bureaucratic lines. Clients do not vote to establish the level of their grants or eligibility cri- teria. In other social welfare programs, however, social provision is so loosely formulated that the local delivery system is charged with the dual purpose of deciding on specific objectives and then carrying out those decisions. For instance, the War on Poverty and Model Cities programs of the 1960s required substantial citizen participation in program planning and implementation. These systems thus incorporated democratic as well as bureaucratic elements in their structure. The problem in these systems, it often turned out, is that nei- ther value was served very well. 53 Local autonomy and centralization are values that find expression in the financing and administration of programs. Strains between these values are most likely to emerge when program costs are shared intergovernmentally or, in the private sector, between nationwide and local voluntary organizations. Cost- sharing arrangements are implemented through federal grants-in-aid that vary along a continuum from broad purpose block grants to special-purpose categor- ical grants. The block grant is a lump-sum national contribution for local pro- grams. It carries few specifications or requirements on how the money should be spent beyond requirements that it be applied to a general program realm such as health, community development, or education. This ensures a high de- gree of local autonomy. At the other end of the continuum is the special-pur- pose grant with detailed standards. Here, local discretion regarding the use of funds is restricted according to precise federal criteria. In most cost-sharing ar- rangements, the methods of finance fall somewhere midway on the continuum, reflecting the mutual desirability of local autonomy and national planning. For example, although based on categorical principles, the AFDC program contained elements of both values. The federal funders attached various condi- tions to these categorical grants concerning citizenship, "statewideness," and the provision of services. Yet local autonomy prevailed in at least two crucial aspects of the program. States were free to exercise broad discretion in defining the criteria of need and the amount of financial assistance that is provided to recipients. The centralist thrust of the program was mitigated in part because, as Burns explains, "to prescribe in the federal act both the standards of need which determine eligibility and the minimum level of living to be assured all eligible applicants raises major issues regarding federal interference in an area which traditionally has been thought of as peculiarly a matter for local de- termination. "54 When AFDC was supplanted by TANF in 1996, the funding arrangement changed from a categorical to a block grant, giving states much greater latitude to determine how funds are spent. Various conditions, never- theless, were attached to the block grants concerning citizenship, time limits, and work requirements (see Chapter 8). THEORIES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND SOCIALCHOICE The subtle and complex relationships between value preferences and social welfare policies offer one level of insight into the "why" of social choice. An- other dimension of analysis that has a bearing on this question involves the- ories and assumptions about how clients, service delivery systems, methods of finance, and types of social provisions function, both independently and in concert. Much of this kind of theory-derived knowledge is fragmented and A Frameworkfor Social WelfarePolicyAnalysis 83 only partially verified. This is not to deny the effect of social science knowl- edge on choice, but rather than overestimate what is known, we use the term theory to cover the influence and support that social science insights render to policy choices. We classify as assumptions those suppositions for which there has been little systematic effort to obtain and codify evidence. In the general sense, the term assumptions is used to designate theories "writ small." To illustrate, let us continue to examine public assistance. At least three At least three assump- assumptions underpinning major policy choices in the program were seriously tions underpinning challenged by subsequent evidence. First, the 1962 "service" amendments major policy choices were supported by the belief that the clinical model of casework service would in public assistance reduce economic dependency. Implicit is the theory that poverty is mainly a have been seriously function of individual deficiencies, deficiencies that can be transformed and alleviated through the casework process. This theory was relatively new at the challenged by time. Until the 1950s, assistance recipients were generally considered "victims subsequent evidence. of external circumstances, such as unemployment, disability, or the death of the family's breadwinner," who "needed to be 'relieved'-not treated or changed. "55 In 1971, after reviewing studies of casework efforts to treat and rehabilitate those on public assistance, Carter concluded, It becomes clear that it is time to reassess the purposes of casework ser- vices offered welfare recipients and other low income groups for whom problems identified for alleviation are complex and interrelated with other personal, family, and community or societal problems... there are serious questions as to what behavioral changes can be set in motion without provision first being made for a decent level of living and access being provided to a range of social resources within the agency and the community.66 Second, the separation of income maintenance from the administration of social services in the late 1960s was predicated on the assumption that ser- vices would be improved because the caseworker-client relationship would no longer be tinged by the coercive undertones emanating from the worker's discretionary authority over the client's budget. Clients, presumably, would be free to accept or reject services as needed, and caseworkers, released from the task of administering grants, would have more time to engage in a voluntary service enterprise. This is a plausible line of reasoning, but one open to criti- cal examination. Neither the strength of the caseworker's coercive powers, and their effects on relationships with clients, nor the extent of client initiative to seek services when routine caseworker visits were terminated was clearly discernible. It is quite possible, as Handler and Hollingsworth suggest, that the coercion argument was exaggerated and, more important, that in the absence of routine home visits welfare clients would be reluctant to seek help from an unknown official. Thus, "requiring welfare clients to take the initiative may have the effect of cutting off a reasonably valuable service that most clients, in their own words, seem to like. "57 Indeed, research findings on this issue reveal that AFDC recipients made higher demands for services and expressed greater satisfaction when service and income maintenance were combined. 58 As a final example, we tum to the work-incentive program established under the 1967 social security amendments. The perversely accurate acronym for the Work Incentive Program, WIP, conveys the image of an instrument used to drive beasts of burden. Through some creative bureaucratese it was quickly transformed to WIN (Work INcentive). An objective of the 1967 amendments was to swing AFDCservices away from trapi"~ soci~~ork toward more practical and concrete work-oriented ~visi. s fromwelfare to workfare Chapter3 then reflected, and continues to reflect,two assumptions: (1) jobs are availablefor anyone who really wants to work and (2) we know how to change deleterious pat- terns of behavior with voluntary incentives. The problem is primarily seen again as individual deficiency-the lack of skills and adverse attitudes toward work- although of a different nature than those amenable to psychiatric casework. The solution is to equip people for jobs and motivate them to seek employment. Although facts about WINare not decisive, what is known suggests that its as- sumptions were flawed. Levitan and Taggartindicated that of the 167,000 people who first enrolled in WIN,more than one-third dropped out of the program and, all told, only 25,000 got jobs. Those who moved on to work were "creamed" from the pool of applicants. Those moving into jobs, in other words, were those best prepared for jobs. This group included a high percentage of unemployed fathers receiving AFDC who probably would have found employment sooner or later without social assistance. In light of the program's "conspicuously unspectacular performance," the study observed, "the wisdom of expanding WIN is question- able, and the theoretical arguments for such a move are even more dubious. "59 A subsequent analysis of the WIN experience suggests that the program's shortcomings endured to the end. In 1982, only 3 percent of the AFDC clients registered for the WIN program in New York State were placed in a job; an ad- ditional 5 percent found employment through their own efforts. In a distinct echo of Levitan and Taggart's findings, the 1982 study observed that "those who eventually are served generally represent the easiest to employ-those most likely to get jobs without the help of special services. "60 Although find- ings on work programs in the five states that formed a model for the Family Support of 1988 were somewhat more encouraging, a substantial proportion (from 40 to 80 percent) of participants remained unemployed after six to fif- teen months. The extent to which this type of voluntary program can amelio- rate the circumstances of welfare recipients, therefore, remains uncertain. 61 The two assumptions that have girded workfare policies since the mid- 1960s continue to brace the TANF initiatives-a line of reforms aptly char- acterized by Gilbert Steiner as "tireless tinkering with dependent families. "62 Between 1993 and 2008, this "tinkering" produced unprecedented and signifi- cant results, as welfare caseloads declined by more than 50 percent. TANF's demanding work-oriented reforms, facilitated by other factors, contributed powerfully to this reduction. Since the 2008 recession, however, many of the jobs secured by welfare moms during the prosperous years have evaporated. In addition, as those recipients most willing and able to leave welfare were drawn out of the client pool, those remaining presented a tremendous challenge to the second workfare assumption-that we know how to address the variety of debilitating individual problems involving a lack of skill, ability, and motivation, to say nothing of substance abuse and domestic violence. For example, an analysis of the National Adult Literacy Survey, which tests the ability to apply math and reading skills to everyday situations, indicates that a quarter of all public assis- tance recipients score in the lowest of five levels of literacy-a level where people are unable to perform tasks such as locating an intersection on a street map, filling out a government benefits application, or totaling the costs on an order form. 63 Can public policy successfully address these problems? Increasing evi- dence suggests that various measures can effectively address the employment prospects of the difficult-to-serve if the economy is expanding. Pu

PDF - A Framework for Social Welfare Policy Analysis

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript