Because of the way the federal legislation was written, states must act expediently or lose the potential to control their own programs. It is critical, however, that their response not be made in haste. The response of state leaders to welfare reform will affect the view of citizens for years to come about whether government works.
Saving money is driving welfare reform, at least at first glance. Actually, however, the American population does not believe that entitlements -- which have defined welfare programs for more than 60 years -- have made a significant impact on poverty.
More importantly, voters believe that the administrators of this country's welfare programs have not acted in accord with the reasons the voting public originally supported welfare programs. Those original motivations were to give people in poverty a chance to get on their feet so that they could assimilate into society, get jobs and develop the values of the larger voting public. The idea was that anyone in poverty was "entitled" to a second chance afforded by subsistence levels of economic support.
The legislation was written so that it could deliver that second chance, but the administrators of the programs implemented them as though recipients were entitled to continuing support rather than to opportunity. Programs and processes replaced the original motivations behind welfare with a self-perpetuating maintenance program.
It is critical to the operation of American government that the professionals who implement policy do so in a way that is aligned with the true intentions of the voting public. Policy makers who enacted the recent welfare reform legislation were trying to re-create the intentions of the original welfare legislation.
The intention of the new law is to have a human services environment that promotes self-sufficiency for those who are trapped in poverty. The tools that are embedded in the new legislation are mandates for recipients to work and mandatory time limits for benefits. Americans value self-sufficiency and the belief that every person should have an opportunity to achieve it.
Our society and economy are built on the contributions of a diverse population -- the electorate wants everyone to have a chance to contribute.
When we design the new human services programs, let us use what we have learned about process reengineering, about measurements affecting outcomes, about the power of information systems to lock in rules dispassionately. As always, the success of public programs is not dependent on the clever drafting of legislation, but rather implementation of effective processes, administered by those who are aligned with the program objectives.
It is easier to change policy than it is to change the behaviors of workers in the current systems or the beneficiaries of it. Because of the urgency in the policy arena, states will probably ask caseworkers to implement programs without investing in the difficult work of process reengineering. It is essential that investments be made in these new processes if we expect human services professionals to be effective in achieving the desired outcomes.
BUSINESS PLAN
Processes and information systems should be planned and deployed according to the directive of a business plan that emerges from an accepted vision.
Self-sufficiency for those currently in poverty is the vision, welfare reform is the plan, the processes and systems we implement are the responsibility of public-sector employees. Let us use all that we have learned, and return the faith of the voting public to the institution of government by implementing programs whose outcomes align to the vision of American voters.
Larry Singer -- an expert on strategic computing with 12 years experience in the information technology industry serving all levels of government -- completed a program for senior executive fellows in public policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. E-mail: < ljsinger@aol.com >.
*
