CHAPTER 3
Welfare Reform in Selected
North Carolina Counties:
A Systematic Analysis of
In-Depth Reports
Christine A. Kelleher
Susan Webb Yackee
The 1997 North Carolina welfare reform legislation shifted new responsibilities to the counties. The counties, in turn, were challenged to respond to this shift with the creation of new and innovative policies to implement the desired programmatic and organizational changes. This chapter provides an examination of the impacts of these shifts at the county level. In particular, the chapter highlights themes uncovered by 23 case studies (also referred to as “in-depth reports” and “focus counties”) of specific North Carolina counties.
The first phase of the Tracking County Responses to Welfare Reform project provided for the compilation of these 23 case studies. The reports were written by 12 faculty associates at 11 University of North Carolina institutions across the state. We asked the research associates to address several specific topics regarding welfare reform in their reports; however, the final documents also tell unique stories related to the county-level implementation of the national and state welfare reform legislation.1 Specifically, we asked the research network of faculty associates to examine the ramifications of devolving power to counties, the differing goals of major county officials, how county actors responded to changes in responsibilities and workload, and the dynamics of the Standard versus Electing County decision. The researchers completed these reports in the summer of 2000 after meeting with county officials, reviewing official documents, and tracing media reports.
In this chapter, we summarize the main findings from the 23 county studies. We first discuss the researchers and counties selected for the in-depth reports. Second, we briefly compare the selected counties to the other counties in North Carolina. Third, we outline several major themes and trends that emerged from our systematic analysis of the reports. Fourth and finally, we provide the original executive summaries for each of the reports.
The Researchers and
Counties Selected for Analysis
The network of 12 faculty associates was a diverse group of scholars, with women and men from a variety of academic disciplines (including political science, social work, and public administration) contributing to the research effort. Each brought a different perspective to his or her examination of welfare reform; and, as a result, the in-depth reports provide a unique, contextual examination of the ramifications of devolving power to counties. In addition, they explore how county officials responded to changes in their responsibilities and workload as well as discuss how these officials reconciled (or failed to reconcile) their competing goals and visions for welfare implementation.
We tried to select counties from all regions of the state and were successful, for the most part, except for the absence of counties in the northeast corner. The 23 counties and the institutions from which our research network originated are highlighted in the following map.
As stated earlier, the reports were completed in the summer of 2000. To compile information researchers met with numerous county officials, including Commissioners, county Department of Social Services (DSS) Directors and personnel, and County Managers, and discussed welfare reform. In their respective counties, the researchers also turned to other community leaders and local newspaper reports to trace the evolution of welfare reform. Below is a list of the participating faculty associates, their academic institutions, and their respective case study counties. The full case studies are available on the Tracking project’s Web site at http://www.unc.edu/depts/welfare/. The executive summaries from these reports are reprinted at the end of this chapter.
Table 3.1. Tracking County Responses to Welfare Reform Research Associates
Name
/Institution
/Counties
(S) Standard(E) Electing
(E; S) Electing then Standard
Dr. Daniel Barbee / UNC Pembroke / Moore (E; S)
Robeson (S)
Dr. Thomas Barth / UNC Wilmington / New Hanover (E)
Pender (S)
Dr. Philip Cooke / UNC Chapel Hill / Caldwell (E)
Orange (S)
Dr. Ruth DeHoog / UNC Greensboro / Guilford (S)
Forsyth (E)
Dr. Dennis Grady / Appalachian State
University / Ashe (S)
Wilkes (E)
Dr. Terry Gibson / Western Carolina University / Jackson (S)
Transylvania (E)
Dr. Elizabethann O’Sullivan / North Carolina State University / Wake (S)
Johnston (S)
Dr. Gary Rassel / UNC Charlotte / Mecklenburg (S)
Cabarrus (S)
Dr. William Sabo / UNC Asheville / Buncombe (S)
McDowell (E)
Dr. Carmine Scavo / East Carolina University / Pitt (S)
Craven (E; S)
Dr. Rebecca Winders / North Carolina Central University / Durham (S)
Person (S)
Dr. Deil S. Wright / UNC Chapel Hill / Chatham (E)
To determine whether the trends and patterns apparent within these reports might be generalized to the rest of the state, we examined the representative nature of the 23 case study counties as compared to the entire state of North Carolina. As a result, we analyzed the general demographic, economic, and political characteristics of these two groups. Table 3.2 highlights these findings.
Table 3.2. Are the 23 Tracking counties like or unlike other North Carolina counties?
Counties (23)* / All North Carolina Counties (100)*
Population (1998) / 156,555 / 76,508
Unemployment Rate (1998) / 3.6% / 4.5%
Population Registered Republican / 34% / 31%
Drop in Welfare Caseloads / 48% / 51%
*The values are the mean scores (averages) for each categorization.
Sources: North Carolina Department of Commerce and North Carolina State Data Center.
The largest difference occurs in the population category. This, however, is not surprising because our research network included some of the most populous counties in the state (including Mecklenburg, Durham, Wake, Forsyth, and Guilford). Our focus counties also appear slightly more economically advantaged than the state as a whole, with the Tracking counties’ unemployment rate approximately 20% below the state average. The average declines in welfare caseloads, however, are quite similar. In terms of political characteristics, the Tracking counties are also quite representative of the state as a whole.
Research Trends and the
In-Depth Report Analysis Instrument
In order to summarize the major patterns, themes, and conclusions across the 23 in-depth reports, we invited each member of our research network to complete a short survey. A copy of this survey, called the “The In-Depth Report Analysis Instrument,” is in Appendix C. This survey focused on a number of substantive issues related to North Carolina’s recent welfare reform efforts, including the dynamics of the Standard versus Electing County decision, the general goals of welfare reform, and changes associated with county–state relationships. Eleven out of 12 faculty associates completed the survey for each of their respective counties of analysis; and, therefore, most of the percentages and mean values discussed in this section are computed for 21 out of 23 case studies. In the following section we highlight selected results and perceptions from this survey of the research network regarding the North Carolina counties studied by the Tracking project, as well as some general observations by the faculty associates.
The Standard Versus Electing County Decision
In almost all of the in-depth reports the decision to be a Standard or Electing County appeared to be an extremely significant and politically polarized one. For example, in Transylvania County the original vote to become an Electing County was closely divided and quite controversial, with three members of the Board of County Commissioners supporting and two members opposing Electing County status (Gibson 2000). A county official in Cabarrus County was concerned about the implications of being an Electing County: “We’re trying to figure out how much latitude the state is going to give the pilot programs. We feel like there are some things the state won’t let you do” (Rassel and Etringer 2000, 7). The Tracking project researcher in McDowell County wrote, “McDowell’s welfare reform effort . . . occurred in a context of extensive poverty and a culture that discourages public assistance. The result was a controversial and divisive process that ultimately led the county [to adopt] the Electing option” (Sabo 2000, 2).
What forces motivated the decision to be a Standard or Electing County? Over 80% of the researchers indicated that internal factors (within county government) influenced the decision in their case study counties, while 60% pointed to the importance of external factors (such as interactions with the state government and state officials). In Craven County for example, one DSS member argued that Electing County status should definitely be pursued. As a result, in early October of 1997, the County Commissioners voted almost unanimously in support of that pursuit (Scavo 2000). In other counties such as Forsyth, New Hanover, Moore, and Ashe, pressures from state-level officials served to motivate the decision to be a Standard or Electing County (DeHoog and Mattiello 2000, Barth 2000, Barbee 2000, Grady and Schumann 2000).
When asked what specific forces drove the Standard versus Electing decision, 63% of the researchers pointed to the influence of the social services community in their case study counties, 44% argued that fiscal constraints were important, and 37% noted the role of partisan divisions. For example, “the decision dynamics driving the process in Wilkes County during the late summer and through the fall of 1997 was a rich mixture of state and local partisan politics, fear of the unknown, and cautionary advice from policy experts” (Grady 2000, 7).
The Goals and Achievements of Welfare Reform
Much of the media coverage and political rhetoric surrounding welfare reform focused on reducing the number of clients on the welfare rolls. In North Carolina, the state Division of Social Services in its North Carolina State Work First Plan also focused attention on the importance of reducing rolls, and it became one of the state’s primary goals for welfare reform. When we examine welfare caseloads in North Carolina on the state level, it appears that Work First and welfare reform have been quite successful in achieving this goal.2 Since 1995, caseloads have declined by 54% in North Carolina, dropping from 113,485 in June 1995 to 47,349 in February 2000.3
On the county level, the in-depth reports completed by the research network all point to the prevalence and achievement of this general objective as well. In Craven County the county officials hoped for a 25 to 30% reduction in caseloads, and were thrilled when the cases dropped by an even greater amount, 38%, within one year (Scavo 2000). In Pender County, despite the devastating effects of Hurricane Floyd, welfare rolls still have decreased by 73% since Work First was instituted (Barth 2000). The other in-depth reports also document welfare caseload reduction. Many counties, including McDowell, Transylvania, Wake, and numerous others, note even greater declines in the welfare rolls. County leaders in Caldwell and Durham Counties, however, disagreed with the argument that the reduction of rolls was a county-level program goal. Instead, they contended that it was in reality much more of a state and federal mandate (Cooke and Alexander 2000, Winders 2000).
Securing work for welfare recipients was another critical goal pursued by all of the counties studied: “The primary goal of Forsyth County’s Work First program was to promote self-sufficiency among the client population,” wrote two researchers from UNC Greensboro (DeHoog and Mattiello 2000, 13). The Chatham County plan for welfare reform had quite similar focus. “The welfare reform vision of Chatham County is to lead to jobs providing self-sufficiency and community prosperity” (Chatham County Welfare Reform Plan, 8, qtd. in Wright 2000, 14). In fact, many counties appeared truly determined to help welfare recipients improve their lives, become self-sufficient, and remain permanently off the rolls.
However, the research network also emphasized the importance of numerous other goals for welfare reform. Of the counties examined, 72% of researchers noted a focus on child welfare enhancement in their case study counties and 65% argued for the importance of improved transportation. Also, 56% of the in-depth report counties pointed to desired poverty reduction, and 50% mentioned the necessity of improved day care programs. Interestingly, 25% of the reports claimed that the county’s new policies and objectives pursued were more punitive than in the past. Perhaps this might be attributed to the intense concentration on work and the stricter limits established relative to the duration of welfare benefits.
We also asked a series of questions regarding the perceived achievement of certain welfare goals. In 100% of the counties studied, researchers indicated that caseload reduction and workforce participation had been achieved. Over 70% of the researchers responded that child welfare enhancement was perceived to have been successful in their case study counties, and 46% of counties pointed to the achievement of reduced poverty. A Work First Supervisor in Moore County described the new process of welfare. He stated, “When they ask for a check now . . . from the day they walk in the door they are being told . . . helped . . . educated that they will be in some type of work or school activity . . . [T]hey . . . have to do one of those activities before we will approve them” (Barbee 2000, 19).
County Transformations
In our survey of the Tracking project research associates, we also focused on the perceptions of changes that occurred within counties due to the implementation of welfare reform policies. On a scale from 1 to 4 (with 1 representing “Strongly Agree” and 4 representing “Strongly Disagree”), we asked the faculty researchers whether a transformation occurred in their focus county’s DSS because of welfare reform. The mean response was 1.8, indicating that the researchers generally agreed with the observation of change in the DSS. We also asked the researchers to assess whether the DSS played an important innovative role in welfare reform in their respective counties. On the same scale the mean response again was 1.8, indicating that the researchers agreed with the assertion that the DSS emerged as a definitive source of innovation.
Finally, research associates also noted a shift in the actual job responsibilities of DSS workers in a number of counties. A moderate to high shift was observed, with the roles of caseworkers changing from benefit/compliance officers to employment facilitators. This trend is quite consistent with the more general county emphasis on promoting self-sufficiency by bringing welfare recipients to work. For example, members of our research network noted the following: “Johnston County’s Department of Social Services was once thought of as an agency that ‘wrote checks,’ but now it brims with energy as staff work with clients to find jobs, provide additional needed support, such as child care, and seek solutions to the problems of long-term clients. The staff has new respect for clients, and the county officials have a new respect for the agency” (Chernoff and O’Sullivan 2000, 2).