Implementing welfare reform in michigan: The role of street-level bureaucrats[1]

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2002, Pages 901-921

  Riccucci, Norma M ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937382266     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-120004110     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Funded by a grant from the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, Albany, New York.
2. Weissert, C.S., 2000. Learning from Leaders Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government. See, for example
3. McClintock, C., and Colosi, L.A., 1998. Evaluation of Welfare Reform. Evaluation Review, 22: 668–695.
4. Beer, S.H., 1998. Welfare Reform: Revolution or Retrenchment?. Publius, 28: 9–16.
5. Nathan, R.P., and Gais, T.L., Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: A first look, Rockefeller Institute of Government. Albany, NY, 1999 See, for example
6. Meyers, M.K., and Heintze, T., 1999. The Performance of the Child-Care Subsidy System. Social Service Review, 73: 37–64.
7. Lino, M., 1998. Child Care and Welfare Reform. Family Economics & Nutrition Review, 11: 41–48.
8. Hasenfeld, Y., 2000. Social Services and Welfare-to-work: Prospects for the Social Work Profession. Administration in Social Work, 23: 185–201.
9. Brock, T., and Harknett, K.A. 1998. Comparison of Two Welfare-to-Work Case Management Models. Social Service Review, 72: 493–520.
10. Handler, J.F., 1998. Welfare-to-Work: Reform or Rhetoric?. Administrative Law Review, 50: 635–659.
11. Hargrove, E.C., 1975. The Missing Link Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
12. Nakamura, R.T., and Smallwood, F., 1980. The Politics of Policy Implementation New York: St. Martins Press.
13. Lynn, L.E., Jr. 1987. Managing Public Policy Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
14. Rosenbloom, D.H., 1998. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector, 4 New York: McGraw-Hill.
15. Lispky, M., 1980. Street Level Bureaucrats: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services New York: Russell Sage.
16. Lispky, M., 1984. Bureaucratic Disentitlement in Social Welfare Programs. Social Service Review, 58: 3–27.
17. Hasenfeld, Y., ed. 1992. Human Services as Complex Organizations Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Keiser, L.R., 1999. State Bureaucratic Discretion and the Administration of Social Welfare Programs: The Case of Social Security Disability. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 9: 87–107.
19. Handler, J.F., 1986. The Conditions of Discretion: Autonomy, Community, Bureaucracy New York: Russell Sage. Also see, for example
20. Weissert, C.S., 1994. Beyond the Organization: The Influence of Community and Personal Values on Street-Level Bureaucrats' Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4: 225–255.
21. Keiser, L.R., 1999. State Bureaucratic Discretion and the Administration of Social Welfare Programs: The Case of Social Security Disability. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 9: 88
22. Prottas, J.M., 1979. People-Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Also see
23. Keiser, L.R., 1999. State Bureaucratic Discretion and the Administration of Social Welfare Programs: The Case of Social Security Disability. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 9: 87–107.
24. Clark-Daniels, C.L., and Daniels, R.S., 1995. Street-Level Decision Making in Elder Mistreatment Policy: An Empirical Case Study of Service Rationing. Social Science Quarterly, 76: 460–473.
25. Certainly, however, prior to the 1996 reform, there were several legal and policy efforts which brought a number of changes to the AFDC program over the years. See, for example
26. Mead, L.M., 1986. Beyond Entitlement New York: The Free Press.
27. Bane, M.J., and Ellwood, D.T., 1994. Welfare Realities Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
28. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). States are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence. U.S. GAO: Washington, D.C., June 1998
29. See, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, D.C., August 1998
30. Data for this research were collected as part of a larger study we are conducting through the Rockefeller Institute, which examines the implementation of welfare reform in four states (Georgia, Michigan, New York and Texas)
31. The other agency, as will be discussed later in the text, is the Michigan Jobs Commission and its' local contractors
32. Weissert, C.S., 1999. “ Welfare Reform in Michigan: Beyond the Headlines and the Hype ”. In Rockefeller Institute of Government, Symposium: Implementing Welfare Reform 23–32. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.
33. Seefeldt, K., Sandfort, J., and Danziger, S.K., February, 1998. “ Michigan Program on Poverty and Social Welfare Policy ”. In Moving Toward a Vision of Family Independence: Local Managers' Views of Michigan's Welfare Reforms University of Michigan.
34. Waivers permit states to by-pass federal law in order to experiment with changes or reforms to welfare in their states
35. Seefeldt, K.; Sandfort, J.; Danziger, S.K. Moving Toward a Vision of Family Independence: Local Managers' Views of Michigan's Welfare Reforms. Michigan Program on Poverty and Social Welfare Policy, University of Michigan, February, 1998, 64
36. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Michigan State Capacity Report. Rockefeller Institute of Government: Albany, NY, 1998, 12
37. The Michigan Jobs Commission was initially created as a limited-term (2 years) agency in February of 1993 and later became a department in February of 1995. For the most part, it was a consolidation of government programs, especially in workforce development. The economic development function was moved from the Commerce Department (which later became a regulatory agency and renamed). Approximately 50 job training programs were consolidated from 10 different state departments into the Jobs Commission
38. Weissert, C.S., 1999. “ Welfare Reform in Michigan: Beyond the Headlines and the Hype ”. In Rockefeller Institute of Government, Symposium: Implementing Welfare Reform 23–32. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.
39. Work First sites, as they are commonly referred to, are nonprofit, for profit and school-affiliated entities that contract with the Michigan Works! Agencies to provide employment services to TANF clients. See
40. Seefeldt, K., Sandfort, J., and Danziger, S.K., February, 1998. “ Michigan Program on Poverty and Social Welfare Policy ”. In Moving Toward a Vision of Family Independence: Local Managers' Views of Michigan's Welfare Reforms University of Michigan.
41. Some of the information in this section was pulled from the website: www.mfia.state.mi.us/welchang.htm
42. Vinzant, J.C., and Crothers, L., 1998. Street-Level Leadership Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
43. Holzer, H.J., 1999. Will Employers Hire Welfare Recipients? Recent Survey Evidence from Michigan. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18: 449–472. But see
44. whose research of 900 employers in Michigan during 1997 revealed that many of the jobs in demand are found in small or suburban areas to which inner-city residents have limited access. He also found that longer-term welfare recipients may not possess the basic skills needed to perform the jobs available, and in general are not “job ready.