Scaling up CBOs for second‐order devolution in welfare reform

Abstract

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 to states, 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 Assistance to 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 families toward economic selfsufficiency. Early findings from project innovations in Texas and other states raise doubts about the capacity of these organizations to achieve these goals. State funders will need to provide ongoing technical assistance and support to "scale up" the capacity of CBOs to plan, implement, and manage local innovations in welfare reform.

“Jesus Speaks Better”: Interactions Between State and Faith-Based Organizations in Service Implementation

“…They argue that, on one hand, FBOs can be more effective in some kinds of services, especially by ensuring their continuity and introducing specific agendas into social policies (Adloff, 2006; Bishop, 2006; Coleman, 2001; Fossett, 2004; Mapes, 2004). However, other scholars have questioned the benefits of FBO involvement for welfare policies, as they may have limited capacity and may compromise principles of the welfare state, such as inclusion and universalism (Dunn, 2009; Kinney, 2006; Poole, 2003; Poole et al, 2002).…”

Shadows of the shadow state: Grassroots, refugee-led organizations within a multi-scalar and contested resettlement institutional domain

“…This is intended to give provincial, regional, and local governments flexibility and discretion in policy implementation (López-Santana and Moyer, 2012; Vampa 2017). However, downward restructuring became lower still: government functions and roles were passed down to non-profit organizations as “second-order devolution” (Poole, 2003). These organizations in the private nonprofit sector became the new providers of public social services.…”

Faith-Based Organizations as Service Providers and Their Relationship to Government

“…Alexander (1999), however, noted that the capacity of FBOs to play major roles as government contractors is limited by their financial and human resources and the potential conflict between market orientation and organizational mission. Poole (2003) and Poole, Ferguson, DiNitto, and Schwab (2002) raised doubts about the capacity of FBOs to achieve the goal of moving welfare families into the labor force and taking leadership role in welfare reform. Likewise, Kissane (2005Kissane ( , 2008 questioned the capacity of FBOs to take on services for low-income and welfare-reliant families and poor women.…”

“…Likewise, Kissane (2005, 2008) questioned the capacity of FBOs to take on services for low-income and welfare-reliant families and poor women. Poole (2003) and Poole, Ferguson, DiNitto, and Schwab (2002) raised doubts about the capacity of FBOs to achieve the goal of moving welfare families into the labor force and taking leadership role in welfare reform. Resources and operational ability limit the growth of some FBOs.…”