Premium
Scaling up CBOs for second‐order devolution in welfare reform
Author(s) -
Poole Dennis L.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
nonprofit management and leadership
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.844
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1542-7854
pISSN - 1048-6682
DOI - 10.1002/nml.3
Subject(s) - devolution (biology) , discretion , revenue , order (exchange) , welfare reform , welfare , work (physics) , public administration , business , state (computer science) , decentralization , public economics , economics , economic growth , finance , political science , market economy , law , sociology , engineering , mechanical engineering , algorithm , anthropology , computer science , human evolution
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 created a paradigm shift in the financing,organization, and delivery of welfare programs in the United States. The act shifted revenue and authority tostates, giving them great discretion to determine the specifics of their programs. First‐order devolution,combined with time limits and work requirements, set in motion a chain of events that moved Temporary Assistanceto Needy Families (TANF) recipients into the labor force and off state welfare rolls.Second‐order devolution shifted revenue and authority to community‐based organizations(CBOs) to help former recipients remain employed, advance to higher paying jobs, and move their familiestoward economic self‐sufficiency. Early findings from project innovations in Texas and other states raisedoubts about the capacity of these organizations to achieve these goals. State funders will need to provideongoing technical assistance and support to “scale up” the capacity of CBOs to plan, implement, andmanage local innovations in welfare reform.