This study compares administrative and caseworker perspectives on service delivery processes in rural areas in an Appalachian state with high levels of poverty and unemployment and limited economic resources for investment and development. The focus of this study is on the implementation of West Virginia Works, West Virginia’s public assistance program that was adopted in response to new federal welfare law enacted in 1996. The data source used in this research comes from focus groups with approximately 80 caseworkers and 5 West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources administrators with key knowledge of welfare reform in West Virginia. Implications for service delivery and public policy are discussed.
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. “Eighth Annual Report to Congress. Chapter 10: Figure A, Table 1.3.” Retrieved July 16, 2012 (www.acf.hss.gov/programs).
2.
AnthonyElizabeth K.VuCatherine M.AustinMichael J.2008. “TANF Child-Only Cases: Identifying the Characteristics and Needs of Children Living in Low-Income Families.”Journal of Children & Poverty14(1):1–20.
3.
BillingsDwight B.1988. “The Rural South in Crisis: A Historical Perspective.” Pp. 13–29 in The Rural South in Crisis: Challenges for the Future, edited by BeaulieuL. J.Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
4.
BlankRebeccaHaskinsRon, eds. 2001. The New World of Welfare. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
DeMintJim. 2011. Republicans Announce Welfare Reform Act of 2011, Press Release (Office of Senator Jim DeMint). Retrieved July 16, 2012 (demint.senate.gov/public).
7.
DilgerRobert JayBlakelyEleanor H.LatimerMelissaLockeBarry L.MenckenF. CarsonPleinL. ChristopherPotterLucindaWilliamsDavid G.2004. Welfare Reform in West Virginia. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
8.
GaisThomas L.NathanRichard P.LurieIreneKaplanThomas. 2001. “Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996.” Pp. 35–64 in The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
9.
GlaserBarney G.1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
10.
GlaserBarney G.StraussAnselm. 1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
11.
HagenJan L.1994. “JOBS and Case Management: Developments in 10 States.”Social Work39(2): 197–205.
12.
HagenJan L.2002. “Issues in Implementing TANF in New York: The Perspective of Frontline Workers.”Social Work47(2):172–82.
13.
HasenfeldYeheskel. 2010. “Organizational Responses to Social Policy: The Case of Welfare Reform.”Administration in Social Work34(2):148–67.
14.
HasenfeldYeheskelWeaverDale. 1996. “Enforcement, Compliance, and Disputes in Welfare-to Work Programs.”Social Service Review70(2):235–56.
15.
HowarthJanMorrisonTony. 2007. “Collaboration, Integration, and Change in Children’s Services: Critical Issues and Key Ingredients.”Child Abuse & Neglect31:55–69.
16.
IsenhourCynthiaGoldsteinBeth L.2008. “The Welfare Contract and Critical Case Management.”Journal of Poverty12(1):1–27.
17.
JoyceKristenLevyBrian. 2010. “The Emerging TANF Caseload: Dynamics of Child Only Cases Post-1996.” Presentation made at the annual meetings of the National Association of Welfare Research and Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September 29, Los Angeles, CA.
18.
KingfisherCatherine P.1998. “How Providers Make Policy: An Analysis of Everyday Conversation in a Welfare Office.”Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology8:119–36.
19.
LatimerMelissa. 2004. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Socioeconomic Status of Former TANF Recipients in West Virginia. Sociological Spectrum, 23(1):1–31.
20.
LatimerMelissaColyerCorey. 2010. “Country Road Bureaucracy: The Challenges of Social Service Delivery in an Economically Disadvantaged Rural State.”Journal of Applied Social Service4(1):64–78.
21.
LatimerMelissaBlakelyEleanor H.LockeBarryPleinL. ChristopherWilliamsDavid G.2005. “WV WORKS 2004: Information and Perspectives Provided by WV WORKS Recipients Nearing Their 60-Month Eligibility Limitation.” The West Virginia Public Affairs Reporter22(3):2–15.
22.
LipskyMichael. 1980. Street Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
LurieIrene. 2006. At the Front-line of the Welfare System. Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press.
24.
LurieIreneRiccucciNorma M.2003. “Changing the ‘Culture’ of Welfare Offices: From Vision to the Front-lines.”Administration and Society34(6):653–78.
25.
MeyersMarcia K.1998. Gaining Cooperation at the Front-lines of Service Delivery: Issues for the Implementation of Welfare Reform. The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government Herndon, VA: State University of New York Press.
26.
MorgenSandra. 2001. “The Agency of Welfare Workers: Negotiating Devolution, Privatization, and the Meaning of Self-sufficiency.”American Anthropologist103(3):747–61.
27.
PavettiLaDonnaRosenbergLindaDerrMichelle K.2009. “Understanding Temporary Assistance for Needy Families After Passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005” (Report Submitted to the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources). Mathematica Policy Research, September21.
28.
PleinL. Christopher2001. Welfare Reform in a Hard Place: The West Virginia Experience. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
29.
PleinL. Christopher2006. “The West Virginia TANF Experience: A Retrospective on Welfare Reform.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the National Association of Welfare Research and Statistics, August, Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
30.
RosenJames. 2011. “DeMint’s Deficit Cutting Plan Targets Poor.”Charleston Gazette, December21, p. 6A.
31.
SchneiderAnneIngramHelen. 1990. “Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools.”Journal of Politics52(2):510–29.
32.
StraussAnselm. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
SunsteinCass R.ThalerRichard H.2003. Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron.”University of Chicago Law Review70(4):1159–202.
34.
SweeneyEileen. 2000. “Recent Studies Indicate That Many Recipients Who Are Current or Former Welfare Recipients Have Disabilities or Other Medical Conditions.”Briefing Paper, February29, Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
35.
TweedieJack. 2000. From DC to Little Rock: Welfare Reform at Mid-term.”Publius30(1–2):69–97.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2010a. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s: The Impact of the Recent Recession. Report GAO-10-164. February23.
38.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2010b. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates. Report GAO-10-525. May28.
39.
WeaverR. Kent2000. Ending Welfare as We Know It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
40.
ZedlewskiSheilaGoldenOlivia. 2010. Next Steps for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Urban Institute Brief. Retrieved July 16, 2012 (www.urban.org).
