DEVOLUTION and RECENTRALIZATION OF WELFARE ADMINISTRATION: Implications for “New Federalism”

Abstract

When the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was created, participating states were made responsible for the administration of the program. States could choose between administering the program themselves or allowing local administration under state supervision. Initially, 32 of the 50 states (64%) opted for the state-supervised, locally-administered structure. By 1990, only 15 states (30%) were operating under state-supervised systems. Amid decades of talk about federal-to-state decentralization, seventeen states have chosen to centralize their welfare administration systems. This choice is an important one as there is substantial evidence indicating that administrative structure is an important determinant of program delivery costs and equity. This article uses a logit model to identify the characteristics that have influenced state choice of administrative model. The results suggest that decisions to centralize welfare administration have been systematic choices, driven by geographic, demographic, economic, and political considerations unique to each state. Copyright 2000 by The Policy Studies Organization.

People, power and timber: The politics of community-based forest management

“…In cases where political leaders have devolved authority to the local level they often try to reclaim authority by reinserting state officials in local spaces to exercise power for the central state (Wunsch, 2001;Eaton and Dickovick, 2004). The fact that many states who have decentralized now recapture managerial power by replacing local decision-making structures reaffirms the resurgence of regulatory 'recentralization' (Adkisson and Peach, 2000). Central governments have recentralized control by consolidating patron-client relations, amending policies and laws, or simply neglecting service deliveries to exercise their power over local authorities (Eaton, 2001).…”

Life in the Fast Lane: Transportation Finance and the Local Option Sales Tax

“…While Proposition 13 did not directly affect the way in which transportation was funded in California, it did infl uence the policy changes enacted during the 1980s through its two-thirds vote mandate and the public anti-tax sentiment it generated. Third, while the literature would indicate that states tend to be centralizing in today's environment (Adkisson and Peach 2000;Stonecash 1985), this case study provides an example of how the state government decentralized power and authority to the local level by allowing local governments to raise revenue for local transportation needs.…”

Caught at the Bottom? Redistribution and Local Government in an Era of Devolution

“…For example, decentralized arrangements prior to welfare reform in 1996 tended to be associated with more unequal outcomes owing to local actions to exclude some clients from benefits. Under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), states could opt to administer cash assistance directly or to do so in partnership with county governments (Adkisson and Peach 2000). Adkisson (1998) found that when Nebraska changed regimes from decentralized to centralized in 1982 that expenditures were more equal across counties, in large part because local discretion permitted some jurisdictions to implement processes that were far more restrictive to awarding benefits than those in other jurisdictions.…”