Administration, Governance, and Policy Tools in Welfare Policy Implementation

• Date: 01 July 2004
• Published date: 01 July 2004
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00391.x
• Author: Edward T. Jennings,Jo Ann G. Ewalt

Administration, Governance, and Policy Tools in Welfare Policy Implementation 449

Jo Ann G. Ewalt

Eastern Kentucky University

Edward T. Jennings, Jr.

University of Kentucky

Administration, Governance, and Policy Tools in

Welfare Policy Implementation

Landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 has been operating by legislative extensions

since its expiration in September 2002. At this writing, reauthorization has been derailed by

controversy over various legislative proposals. In this article, we contribute to the welfare policy

debate by studying the importance of specific policy tools and the role of public administration in

the dramatic fall in welfare caseloads from 1996 to 2000. Using administrative and survey data

on welfare programs in 44 states, we test our theory that caseload reduction is a function of

administrative commitments, policy design, and administrative actions linked to five sets of gover-

nance variables: environmental factors, client characteristics, treatments, administrative structures,

and managerial roles and actions. We find strong evidence that administrative action to move

clients into work, coupled with administrative commitments, can provide important links between

policy goals and policy outcomes.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportu-

nity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) reformed the welfare

system to emphasize limited benefits, personal responsi-

bility, and work. Funding for many provisions of this act

expired at the end of September 2002, and PRWORA has

been operating under legislative extensions since then. As

Congress debates the reauthorization of welfare legisla-

tion, scholars following several distinct but related research

traditions are addressing questions about the nature and

impact of the 1996 welfare reforms. Analysts are studying

the specific contributions of various policy tools in an ef-

fort to inform the debates over whether, and to what ex-

tent, key parts of the PRWORA should be amended when

Congress takes up reauthorization again.

Among the issues receiving the most attention are six

key elements: five-year time limits, reduction of out-of-

wedlock births, Medicaid and food stamp eligibility for

working families, work requirements, federal and state

funding levels, and policies promoting marriage (Blank and

Haskins 2001). A current underlying most of these issues

is whether policy changes will continue or hamper the dra-

matic drop in the welfare rolls that all states have experi-

enced in the past six years (Sawhill et al. 2002).

In many ways, the study of welfare reform has become

an inquiry into the administrative implementation of poli-

cies. As Mead notes, “most of the recent reform programs

rely on administrative suasions rather than benefits or in-

centives” (1996, 590). Evaluation studies have attempted

to examine the outcomes of welfare reform, even as prac-

titioners and scholars struggle for a meaningful definition

of successful policy. While there has been considerable

debate about the direction that welfare reauthorization

policy should take, no one doubts that welfare policy will

continue to emphasize work (Blank and Haskins 2001).

In this study we seek to inform the current debate by

analyzing how state welfare policies and administrative

actions have contributed to the dramatic reduction in

Jo Ann G. Ewalt is an associate professor and interim chair of the Depart-

ment of Government and a faculty associate in the Institute of Government at

Eastern Kentucky University. Her research interests focus on policy imple-

mentation and program evaluation. E-mail: joann.ewalt@eku.edu.

Edward T. Jennings, Jr., is a professor in the Martin School of Public Policy

and Administration at the University of Kentucky. His research explores policy

development and implementation. His current work has two streams: one

focusing on the links between public management and the performance of

welfare reform programs, and the other examining the role and impact of

performance-measurement systems in public policy. He is past-president of

the American Society for Public Administration. E-mail: Pub714@uky.edu.