Cascade Policy Institute

This proposal is one of ten winning reports from the 1996 Oregon Better Government Competition. The 1994 and 1996 Competitions were organized by the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute. Opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of Cascade staff or advisors, nor should they be construed as an attempt by Cascade Policy Institute to influence any election or legislation.

CARING COMMUNITIES:

Community-Based Solutions to Welfare

By: Thomas W. Drummond, James G. Fong, Ida Lingo and Karen Sinclair

Jackson and Josephine Counties (District 8) JOBS Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon is a nationwide leader in welfare reform. State policy makers, the welfare agency and community partners have already pioneered the major changes necessary for effective welfare reform in Oregon. Oregon's welfare reform strategy was outlined in 1995 under Senate Bill 1117 and implemented under a unique, performance-based federal waiver called the "Oregon Option."

Oregon's strategy, built upon the State's JOBS (welfare-to-work) program, is a cost-effective, humane approach focused on developing personal responsibility, fostering personal growth, and helping recipients get jobs and become self-sufficient as quickly as possible. Outstanding performance in reducing welfare caseloads, increasing job placements, decreasing welfare recidivism, and decreasing the number of families living below the poverty level is testimony to this successful strategy. With new federal welfare legislation Oregon can achieve even greater success in welfare reform.

Three strategies are proposed to take Oregon's welfare reform effort to the next level of excellence: Continue improving the JOBS program by systematically identifying personal and governmental barriers that prevent welfare recipients from getting jobs, and building upon the strengths and abilities of clients to develop the most effective intervention strategies to overcome these barriers; Challenge and empower local communities to develop long-term, community-centered solutions to welfare and dependency and poverty; and, Focus on strengthening and supporting families.

A. National Welfare Background

By the late 1980's, it had become clear to both government officials and local communities that the welfare system in the United States had gradually degenerated into a sad caricature of the noble intentions underlying its original framework: to provide a financial safety-net for children and families in poverty. Getting off of welfare seemed hopeless, considering that the types of jobs (low pay, no or few benefits) available to unskilled welfare recipients would not provide sufficient income for basic subsistence, medical care, and child care. Most welfare recipients could see no incentives for obtaining part-time work, since their benefits would be reduced accordingly.¹ Welfare was perceived as an entitlement, viewed by many as a way of life, and welfare caseloads increased at a rapid rate. B. Oregon's Welfare Reform to Date

The Oregon JOBS (welfare-to-work) program has been extremely effective in reducing the welfare caseload in Oregon - from 42,809 in July 1993 to 30,998 in July 1996 (a decrease of 27.6%). Statewide JOBS placements have skyrocketed from 627 in July 1993 to 2,330 in July 1996. Almost 85% of Oregon's welfare recipients who obtained employment through JOBS were still off of welfare eighteen months later. The percentage of welfare clients engaged in JOBS activities has increased dramatically. In July 1993, 4775 clients (11% of the caseload) were participating in JOBS statewide; by July 1996, the number had risen to 14,175 (almost 46% of the caseload). These exciting results have been obtained without having to resort to the punitive or restrictive approaches that are currently being utilized in a number of other states, such as restricting eligibility, reducing benefit levels, and enforcing rigid welfare time limits. There have been many criticisms of current and proposed welfare reform models as being, "based primarily on cutting benefits and limiting eligibility."² Serious concerns have been expressed that such punitive and restrictive strategies could easily backfire and drive more families and children into extreme poverty.

The keys to the success of Oregon's JOBS Program have been:

Changing the fundamental principle of welfare from a "handout" to a "hand up," by requiring each client to take personal responsibility for becoming self-sufficient. The emphasis has been shifted from an extensive eligibility determination process to an immediate focus on job search and employment readiness training, including the rapid completion of individualized assessments, identification of potential employment barriers, and development of an initial employment plan. Staff have received extensive training in effective assessment and case management strategies, including methods for encouraging active client participation in writing their employment plans, and techniques for customizing plans to focus on removing employment barriers.

Transforming the welfare agency - Adult and Family Services (AFS) - into an innovative, high performance organization³ characterized by a focus on results, a commitment to continuous quality improvement, a streamlined organization (with a 50% reduction in management staff), a staff empowered to work creatively with clients in self-directed teams, encouragement of thoughtful risk-taking, and close collaboration with community partners. Critical performance measures - welfare caseload reduction, job placements, incidence of return to welfare - provide the equivalent of a private sector "bottom line" by which taxpayers, policy makers, administrators and staff can gauge the effectiveness of poverty-fighting efforts.

Instead of applying rigid State or federal policies, case managers apply a principle-centered approach⁴ based on the agency's adopted core beliefs about welfare reform. ⁵ Some of these core beliefs are that:

1. work is always better than welfare and offers the best avenue to escape poverty;

2. welfare does not adequately support families and should only be a short-term means of support; and

3. welfare clients are all capable of making strides toward self-sufficiency, are accountable for their progress toward their goals, and should be treated with respect and dignity that honors their differences.

Figure 1 provides further description of this organizational transformation.

Employing a work-attachment model to move new welfare applicants and current clients into a work setting as quickly as possible. Extensive research of welfare reform programs nationwide has identified work-attachment models as the most cost-effective in terms of welfare recipients becoming self-sufficient^6&7 - increasing employment and reducing welfare, food stamp, and Medicaid costs. New welfare applicants are required to participate immediately in job search and self-sufficiency activities while their applications for benefits are being considered for approval. These "welfare prevention" activities provide a low-cost, high-impact component that gives welfare applicants the resources and motivation necessary to enter directly into the workforce, rather than onto the welfare rolls. Those who are unable to find jobs and those who are unable to keep jobs are provided with more intensive training, skill development, and support so they too can become self-sufficient.

Development of collaborative community partnerships to cut through bureaucratic boundaries and engage the welfare agency, community colleges, employment and training organizations, social service agencies, nonprofit organizations, community coalitions, and private employers in a coordinated effort to address welfare and employment issues.

Provision of transitional support, including medical coverage (under the Oregon Health Plan), day care assistance, and food stamps as necessary to enable individuals to make the transition into employment. This encourages forward movement toward eventual self-sufficiency by making the first step into entry-level employment economically advantageous.

C. The Oregon Option Waiver and New Federal Welfare Reform Legislation

In March 1996, Oregon received approval from the federal government to implement a new set of welfare reform waivers. These waivers were part of the "Oregon Option," a comprehensive strategy by the State of Oregon to redefine its relationship with the federal government. In exchange for relief from many federal requirements, the State agreed to meet higher performance outcomes in its welfare program. Under the Oregon Option, virtually all welfare recipients are required to participate in self-sufficiency activities. In addition to this "full participation" expectation, the Oregon Option:

expands the pilot JOBS Plus program ("workfare") statewide;

1. provides progressively stricter sanctions for clients who do not cooperate with JOBS;

2. requires that teen parents on welfare live in safe, supervised home environments;

3. allows JOBS staff to mandate substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment; and

4. limits welfare benefits to two years in an eight year period, with limited medical and other incapacitation exceptions (time participating in JOBS is excluded from the limit).

In August 1996, new federal reform legislation was approved by Congress and the President. The basic philosophy of this legislation is aligned with Oregon's approach of ending entitlement and promoting self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. This new legislation adds to Oregon's ability to move further ahead in its welfare reform efforts. Oregon will continue to operate under the previously approved Oregon Option and, in some areas, have increased flexibility to implement even greater self-sufficiency reforms.

D. Strategies for Improving the Effectiveness of JOBS

Despite the documented success of the current JOBS program in reducing Oregon's welfare caseload and increasing job placements through the use of a range of employment development strategies, there are significant challenges that need to be addressed.

An effective system is needed to assess the employability and self-sufficiency attributes (strengths and barriers) of applicants and clients, so that services can be targeted to meet individual needs in the most cost-effective manner. As an entitlement program, the welfare system did not have any reason to routinely collect data regarding client employment barriers. This information will be essential in order to provide streamlined, targeted services.

In the authors' district (AFS District 8), four sources of information about client barriers and strengths were identified for review. The results of these four studies provide a general overview of the most significant issues facing welfare clients.⁸ The results are summarized in Table 1.

Identifying the client attributes that are associated with short-term welfare use (the intended "safety net") versus long-term dependency will lead to more effective use of welfare funds. A number of published studies (Opulent and Mattaini⁹, California GAIN Program¹⁰, North Carolina Counties¹¹, and Friedlander¹²) provide evidence that there are individual factors and clusters of attributes that predispose clients toward different outcomes - either successful employment and self-sufficiency or continued dependency. Among the best predictors of leaving welfare for employment are: (1) high education and social competence; (2) little or no past welfare use; (3) past full-time employment; (4) confidence in future self-sufficiency; (5) strong coping skills; (6) satisfaction with prior work; and (7) absence of depression. The new welfare system must be selective about providing services, neither providing unnecessary services to individuals who don't need them, nor expecting a "one-size-fits-all" approach to be successful with individuals who have serious long-term barriers.

Targeted, cost-effective "barrier removal" activities must be developed and implemented. Once there is a clear understanding of the barriers and other attributes relating to self-sufficiency or continued dependency, no-cost and low-cost strategies can be developed to meet high priority needs. The focus in the past has been on government agencies providing the services to meet client needs. The new focus must be on expanding community-based strategies that link welfare recipients and their families with the kinds of individualized training and natural support systems that will sustain long-term self-sufficiency.

Instead of standard sequences of "core competency" activities for large groups of welfare clients, services must be flexible and relevant. Program related inefficiencies, such as long waiting periods for the next activity, result in client nonparticipation¹³ , thereby increasing program costs and reducing success rates. Effective services must be targeted, flexible, locally-managed, and provided by a wide variety of community sources. Within Oregon, several regions are effectively using menus of activities - employment skills development, barrier removal, work-based training, and structured job search - that are successful in keeping welfare applicants and clients engaged in appropriate activities toward their employment objectives. The authors' district is currently expanding its resource and referral capacity to enable clients to access the services they need through both self-help and community-based approaches.¹⁴

Bureaucratic barriers must be eliminated to the extent possible. Family-centered service provision must cut across the boundaries that traditionally separate government agencies, nonprofit organizations, private businesses, advocacy groups, religious organizations, and other groups and individuals who have a common interest in reducing poverty and improving the lives of community members.

One effort in this direction has been the use of multi-agency intervention teams to coordinate comprehensive services for families with complex and severe barriers to self-sufficiency. Staff from social service agencies, health programs, substance abuse treatment programs, mental health programs, the criminal justice system, and nonprofit organizations work as a team to address each family's unique needs. By looking at the family situation as a whole and considering the various dimensions of self-sufficiency (see Table 2: Common Performance Measures for Collaboration), these teams can focus on assisting each family to achieve shared goals, rather than a variety of disconnected agency objectives.¹⁵ As part of this strategy, Oregon's child protective services agency (State Office of Services to Children and Families) is working closely with Adult and Family Services and community partners in using a "Family Unity" model to provide comprehensive interventions that strengthen and support families.¹⁶

These interagency teams have been modeled on national programs for extremely high risk families that have the highest documented rates of success. In her classic book, Within Our Reach¹⁷, Lisbeth Schorr evaluated a wide range of programs throughout the nation for families in poverty, and offered some "best possible practices" recommendations. She notes that effective programs for the most disadvantaged families offer a broad spectrum of accessible services that are family-friendly, flexible, and multi-disciplinary in nature. The most successful programs, "provide intensive, comprehensive, individualized services with aggressive attention to outreach and to maintaining relationships over time."

To be effective, multi-disciplinary intervention teams must not be allowed to become another form of rigid bureaucracy. They must be flexible and adaptable in response to rapidly changing family and systems issues. In order to optimize their effectiveness, they need to work closely with community organizations (churches, service clubs, self-help groups) that can assist in developing strategies to link welfare clients and former clients into the social fabric of the community.

Strategies must focus on strengthening and supporting families. In each of the strategies discussed above, an increased focus must be placed on strengthening and supporting families. The mission of welfare reform partners must change from defining specific problems and providing solutions for troubled individuals (a disease model) to one of building upon individual and family strengths (a resiliency model).¹⁸ Local community care providers such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Kiwanis, Rotary, churches and other religious organizations can provide significant resources and partnership in helping individuals build better relationships and better families. The core strength and ultimate success in any of the above strategies will rest upon the degree to which they focus on building upon the strengths of families.

II. MOVING TOWARD COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS

A. Rebuilding Community

In Managing in a Time of Great Change, Peter Drucker writes of communities in the emerging "knowledge society." "The old communities - family, village, parish, and so on - have all but disappeared in the knowledge society."¹⁹ Few of the tasks that were formerly the responsibility of families and other informal community groups are being done by them anymore. The high mobility characteristic of the modern knowledge society has substantially reduced the control of families and other traditional societal institutions. This very mobility eliminates people's sense of "roots" and "neighborhood" that once provided both support and controls in the lives of most people. "Who then, in the knowledge society, takes care of the social tasks? We can no longer ignore them. But traditional community is incapable of tackling them."²⁰

The Welfare Reform Work Group, designated by Oregon House Bill 3309 to develop a plan to replace the current public assistance system with a family support and workforce development system, identified the "caring community" concept as key to welfare reform. In the work group's blueprint for welfare redesign²¹, a caring community is defined as "a localized culture of civic involvement and responsibility." Acknowledging that the massive changes in the economy, community and family life have contributed to the cycle of poverty and to encouraging welfare dependency, the group notes that, "Communities hold the key to breaking this cycle, not the federal or state government."

The goal is to encourage greater involvement from the natural infrastructure of the community: nonprofit organizations, businesses, churches, service clubs, schools, and self-help groups. Through the active participation and coordinated effort of the nonprofit, private, and public sectors, welfare recipients can become employable, productive, and contributing citizens.

The time is right for government to redefine its role in assisting families in poverty, and for "caring communities" to reassert their role. In Oregon, welfare system administrators and staff have demonstrated their ability to partner with local communities to lift families out of poverty. In the context of reducing poverty, Oregon government must continue its role as a catalytic member of the caring community.

The following sections outline proposed steps to redefining the roles of government and "community" in Oregon welfare reform.

B. Redefinition of Government's Role

The welfare agency has a critical role in facilitating the movement of poor families into the productive, functioning community. Following is a summary of suggested functions for the welfare agency. These include some of the agency's current functions, with modifications, along with the emerging roles relating to community partnership.

Facilitator of community-based initiatives. In Oregon, a new strategy of community partnership is emerging as business, government and nonprofit organizations wrestle with the growing lists of social tasks before them. Public, private, and nonprofit sectors are finding new ways to work together to identify and address areas of common concern. No one sector of society holds all of the answers to the complex social issues we face. A new model of collaboration is necessary if we are to move forward and apply our energies into productive solutions instead of non-productive fault finding. The simple principle of seeing the whole of our complex business and social systems²² , and working together to create healthier communities, can become a powerful guiding force for community-based problem-solving.

The power and simplicity of Oregon's welfare reform success lies in adhering to the principle of community-based solutions that strengthen and support families. Community partners will need to collaborate even more creatively to provide the support, services, and opportunities necessary for welfare recipients to succeed on the path to self-sufficiency. In order for welfare families to become resourceful and productive community members, the entire community will need to be involved in providing the support available through a healthy interdependence with functional individuals and organizations (churches, schools, clubs, service organizations, and businesses).

Community organizations are poised to rise to challenges that are put before them - but they need to know what the challenges are. The welfare agency's role is to serve as a catalyst in bringing together the community resources to help welfare families, by soliciting and facilitating the participation of the various sectors of the community in specific ways. This current focus of Oregon's welfare agencies will become increasingly important in the future.

Reduction of government-imposed barriers to client success. The welfare agency should play two important roles in regard to government regulations: (1) help its clients negotiate government requirements as they attempt to become self-supporting; and (2) work actively to identify and remove government-imposed barriers.

Every effort should be made to remove the government-imposed barriers to creative alternatives that provide legal income while allowing parents to be with their children. Examples: home-based businesses, cooperatives, telecommuting, flexible work hours. Types of regulations that get in the way: zoning, labor, and tax laws. The average individual with a good idea for a low-cost service business can easily be discouraged by the maze of regulations and real and perceived requirements.

The welfare agency should systematically identify and try to address the government regulations that inhibit the movement of welfare families off of welfare. As barriers are identified, the agency should routinely take two steps: (1) get the client in touch with a community advocate (an individual volunteer or a representative within a community or government agency) with the expertise to guide the client through the maze; and (2) refer the issue to the organization or agency that is best able to initiate changes with policy makers or legislators.

Continue to redefine the "safety net" of welfare services to promote personal responsibility and to provide a continuum of support to total self-sufficiency. With recent welfare reform legislation, welfare benefits are no longer an entitlement or a long-term alternative to employment. Individuals must assume primary responsibility for helping themselves become self-sufficient. Government's role is to work as a partner with local communities to provide the temporary support that will help individuals strengthen their families and get employed. The appropriate elements of the "safety net" - cash benefits, food stamps, child care assistance and medical benefits - must continue to be periodically reconsidered and revised. Policies should continue to be carefully examined to see if they really reward work, promote personal responsibility, and provide ever-increasing incentives to get off of all forms of public assistance. In addition, the community's capacity to address the issues of families in poverty must be evaluated.

Governor Kitzhaber has developed a "Human Investment Framework"²³ which articulates how welfare policies fit within a broader strategy to provide a continuum of support to total self-sufficiency. Other State policy makers and administrators should join in the dialogue and support efforts to align investment policies to promote the growth and development of both individuals and businesses.

In addition, services provided by the welfare agency should be administered in the most cost-effective, streamlined manner possible. Regulations, policies, and policing of benefit payments should be carefully examined to see if they really make a significant difference in increasing program effectiveness and/or keeping costs down; if not, they should be modified or eliminated. State and local officials should keep abreast of successful initiatives in other areas, and be willing to try new approaches that have worked well elsewhere.

Assuring that basic rights are protected. Without overdoing it, the welfare agency and its community partners need to monitor the overall welfare program and services sufficiently to protect the basic rights of welfare clients. The welfare agency must take sufficient steps to assure that the community-centered services provided to clients do not subject them to discrimination, unsafe conditions, or other injustices.

Evaluation of services for continuous improvement. In conjunction with its community partners, the welfare agency should engage in ongoing, critical review of welfare-related services, to continuously improve targeting, cost-effectiveness, and results.

C. Role of Private Business

The importance of private business in providing opportunities for self-sufficiency cannot be over-emphasized. Two aspects are discussed in this section: (1) continuing to develop the successful linkages between welfare and job training agencies with the business community for the mutual benefit of clients, businesses, and the community at large; and (2) encouraging entrepreneurship by welfare clients.

Oregon's JOBS Plus program is an example of a successful partnership between businesses and welfare.²⁴ Business leaders played an active role in the creation of this innovative program. For JOBS Plus to work effectively, a community's business leaders must be approached as equal and valued partners who are encouraged to provide solid feedback and direction as to what types of job training incentives work best for them. JOBS Plus was initially developed in such tandem fashion in collaboration with Jeld-Wen Corporation. The result has been an extremely user-friendly system for employers that helps them create temporary training jobs for welfare and unemployment insurance recipients. The benefits that would otherwise have been paid to the welfare or unemployment recipients are used instead to reimburse employers for providing invaluable on-site vocational training and expertise.

Private employers will need to gauge the value of substantially reduced costs they will incur from training and hiring welfare recipients, as well as the benefits they hope to accrue in expanded services, production capacity, and revenue. Companies must find their own proper balance between self-interest and interest in the well-being of their communities. The primary focus of community partners in these endeavors should be the cultivation of dynamic, mutually beneficial relationships between the public and private sectors. This strategy has excellent potential for creating a positive feedback loop that will help businesses grow, create new jobs, and help welfare recipients obtain the training and experience required for self-sufficiency. In such a systems approach, all community partners have vital roles in the support, training and employment of needy families in the community.

An aspect of private business' role that has not received adequate attention in current welfare-to-work programs is the development of small businesses by welfare recipients as part of their self-sufficiency plans. Welfare clients are in an ideal situation to identify service gaps that make it difficult to become self-sufficient, and some could be encouraged to develop creative business solutions to meet those community needs. An example would be providing before- and after-school care or activities at schools not providing this service. One of the welfare agency's functions should be to pave the way for such enterprises by working to reduce government-imposed barriers. Former welfare clients providing useful services that help others become self-sufficient is an excellent way of "giving something back to the community," fostering a greater sense of community.

D. Community Organizations & Volunteers

Nonprofit social service organizations are already an integral part of most welfare reform efforts, and these collaborations should continue to be developed and refined. Many of these organizations have clearly defined missions and services that make them ideal partners for meeting the service needs of welfare clients moving toward self-sufficiency. A few examples of the many types of organizations already working as integral partners are those providing employment training, legal services, education, substance abuse treatment, and child care-related services.

Sectors with largely-untapped potential are the religious community, service organizations, and volunteers. These types of groups have perhaps the greatest ability to link welfare recipients with the networks, support systems, and expertise that will assist them toward become active, contributing community members. They can help in a number of different ways. A church, for example, could: (1) develop a program to help its own members who are welfare recipients to move off of assistance; (2) develop a service program to meet an identified community need; (3) encourage its members to volunteer on their own as community advocates for individuals referred by the welfare agency or other community organizations; (4) encourage its members to provide specific professional or other services to economically disadvantaged community members for a few hours per month: (5) encourage members who are business owners to hire welfare recipients; or (6) sponsor a creative new project that encourages self-sufficiency.

There are many wonderful examples of churches taking on the problem of welfare dependency in their own congregations and making an incredible difference. In Meridian, Mississippi, Greater Christ Temple developed several successful businesses - including motels, a gas station, restaurants, farms, automobile sales and service, and a construction company - which eliminated the need for welfare benefits among a congregation that had previously relied heavily on government assistance.²⁵ In Portland, Oregon, the pastor of Celebration Tabernacle opened a secretarial service, a wrap-and mail packaging service, and a coffee house to provide training and employment to help single mothers move off welfare; day care is provided by the church.²⁶ A significant advantage of this type of approach is that the support systems formed in the process have the potential to be nurturing and long-lasting.

F. Incentives for Community-Based Solutions

Just as the welfare system has historically provided economic disincentives for clients to get off welfare, it has also created a disincentive to states, communities, and local partners to save money. Traditionally, the more the welfare caseload is reduced and the more government money is saved, the more the local welfare agency and its community lose those funds. Budget funds are systematically shifted away from successful programs, in order to support the increasing welfare caseloads of mediocre programs.

Under the proposed model of community-based solutions, incentives should be aligned with the desired outcome of a streamlined government function and an enhanced community role. Specifically, local communities, local organizations and agency staff must be able to see tangible benefits to themselves as well as welfare recipients in continuing their efforts to attain greater caseload reduction.

The Department of Human Resources' recent Welfare Reinvestment Fund effort is an excellent example of such a community reinvestment strategy. As part of the Oregon Option federal waiver, Oregon became the first state to receive outcome-based funding, in recognition of its outstanding performance in reducing welfare caseloads since 1994. Instead of being penalized for significantly reducing welfare caseloads by getting reduced funding, Oregon was awarded a portion of the federal savings it generated. A Welfare Reinvestment Fund of eight million dollars was made available to local community partners statewide to help even more welfare clients attain self-sufficiency.

In the spirit of the high performance government paradigm, Oregon did not simply allocate these funds to each region of the state on a per capita or per welfare case basis. Instead, the State encouraged community organizations to submit proposals to develop innovative new community-centered strategies or adapt successful strategies from other areas. Applicants were required to provide concrete projections of the impacts of their proposed projects on their local welfare caseload and to participate in a program evaluation process. This initiative also encouraged each applicant to carefully consider what it could contribute to the effort (rather than just how much money it wanted), by stating that priority would be given to proposals from community partnership teams that provide some form of local match for the dollars requested from the reinvestment fund.

The process for reinvestment funds generated tremendous interest among public and non-profit organizations and other community partners. More than two hundred proposals were submitted, presenting ideas from hundreds of organizations (public, private and non-profit) and community coalitions. The proposals included a range of strategies, including multi-disciplinary intervention teams, training of selected welfare recipients as day care providers, welfare recidivism case management, teen pregnancy prevention, a strategic barrier removal model, rural transportation, safe teen parent living situations, and expanding low-income housing resources.

While Oregon's Welfare Reinvestment incentive model has been extremely successful in catalyzing a community-centered approach to ongoing welfare reform, some archaic government procurement regulations have created a hindrance to the full implementation of the proposals. Adapting and continuing this approach into the future will help to sustain the momentum toward higher performance and community involvement. To emphasize the reinvestment in communities, rather than government agencies, reinvestment funds could be distributed through experienced community-based boards or commissions. The State welfare agency could identify the guiding principles to be used in distributing funds, and then direct the funds to the designated entities to distribute as grants directly to community organizations and individuals. For this to work, government restrictions and requirements would have to be reduced to an absolute minimum, replaced by general principles to be followed in determining projects appropriate for funding and reviewing their success. The welfare agency and its public partners would serve an important role in reviewing proposals for adherence to the established principles and their potential to meet identified needs of welfare clients and other economically-disadvantaged community members.

III. CONCLUSION

Oregon has already made the major policy changes necessary for effective welfare reform. The State's outstanding performance in reducing welfare caseloads, increasing job placements and decreasing the number of families living below the poverty level are testimony to this successful strategy. Oregon welfare reform efforts, set under Senate Bill 1117 and the Oregon Option, put the State in a unique position to quickly take advantage of recent federal welfare reform legislation. By continuing its movement toward community-based strategies that strengthen and support families, Oregon's welfare system will stay at the forefront of national efforts.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS

Two sets of recommendations are offered.

Recommendations for Oregon policy makers focus primarily on continued improvements to an already high performing system.

Recommendations for policy makers in other states suggest ideas gained from Oregon's experience.

A. Recommendations for Oregon Policy Makers

Continue to emphasize the principle-centered⁴ approach. Recognizing that the power and simplicity of Oregon's welfare reform success lies in basing all decisions on guiding principles, continue to focus on principles of personal responsibility and community-based solutions that strengthen and support families.

Target self-sufficiency services to identified individual and family needs. Support research into "best practices" for targeting self-sufficiency services to welfare clients based on identified attributes (barriers and strengths). Expand and continue to evolve program models that individualize barrier removal resources and interventions.

Remove government barriers to service delivery. Create more flexible contracting processes and mechanisms for procuring needed services from local community providers. Amend any legal limitations that prevent local state agencies from quickly getting services from the best and most cost-effective local provider available. Remove legal restrictions that prevent federal or State performance incentive funds from being distributed as grants through community boards/commissions.

Address government-imposed barriers to client success. Develop systematic processes at the local and State levels to address the problem of government-imposed barriers to client success. Include: ongoing identification of barriers; transmittal of this information to designated individuals/organizations who can propose changes to policy makers and legislators; identification of individuals within other government agencies who can assist clients to work through the requirements; and identification of community advocates to assist clients dealing with government regulations.

Continue to redefine the basic "safety net" of welfare services. Apply principles of personal responsibility, community-based solutions, and solutions that strengthen and support families to changes in basic welfare support to families. Utilize Governor Kitzhaber's "Human Investment Framework"²³ as a model for addressing long-term self-sufficiency goals for welfare recipients and the working poor.

Reward high performance. Encourage government agencies are to effectively behave "more like business" by rewarding high performance. Provide a portion of the welfare cost savings achieved by improved performance to agency staff and community partners as an incentive for continued high performance. Establish general guiding principles for community reinvestment funds, minimizing restrictions and requirements.

Expand the effort to engage religious and service organization in welfare reform. Reach out to religious and service organizations with a general "call to action" at the State level (not a major publicity program or prescription for involvement), mirrored and expanded upon at the local level.

Seek out and build upon successful welfare reform strategies. Continue to solicit and share "success stories" from around the State and the nation, to provide both the specific ideas and the inspiration to keep agency staff and community partners working together toward their common goal of a healthy, functional community.

B. Recommendations for Policy Makers in Other States

Use a principle-centered approach⁴ in reforming the welfare system. Articulate core beliefs about how to help families living in poverty to achieve self-sufficiency, and use these beliefs to guide welfare policy. Consider personal responsibility, community-centered solutions, and solutions that strengthen and support families as possible guiding principles.

Critically assess the capability of your state's welfare agency to revolutionize the welfare system. Consider your state agency's ability to "thrive on chaos,"³ as effective welfare reform requires a total re-engineering of the old welfare system. If your state has a welfare bureaucracy that cannot become an adaptive organization²⁷ capable of empowering staff to develop creative, collaborative interventions, consider options such as privatization and outsourcing for critical self-sufficiency functions.

Focus on results. Implement a performance-based system that creates the equivalent of a private business' "bottom line." Develop a policy framework such as the nationally recognized "Oregon Benchmarks"²⁸ and use it as a baseline from which to develop more specific performance measures such as caseload reduction, job placements, and incidence of return to welfare.²⁹

Reward high performance. Reward high-performing programs by making a portion of the resulting cost savings available for community-based efforts to reduce poverty and welfare dependency.

Emphasize a work-attachment model. Apply strategies with proven effectiveness in moving potential and current welfare clients into jobs as quickly as possible, using additional skill-building, barrier removal activities, and other services only as necessary to promote the transition to self-sufficiency.

Focus on community-centered solutions that strengthen and support families. Develop collaborative community partnerships to engage the welfare agency, community colleges, employment and training organizations, social service agencies, non-profit organizations, civic groups, religious organizations, private employers, and volunteers in a coordinated effort to address welfare dependency and poverty. Help welfare clients strengthen their families by linking them with natural support systems with their communities. Provide intensive, multi-disciplinary team interventions to build upon the individual and family strengths that can enable even the most distressed clients to become contributing community members.

V. ENDNOTES

1. Pavetti, L., Learning from the Voices of Mothers, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1993.

2. Opulenti, M. And Mattaini, M.A., Toward Welfare That Works, Behavior and Social Issues, 1993, pages 3, 17-34.

3. Peters, T., Thriving on Chaos - Handbook for a Management Revolution, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1987.

4. Covey, S., Principle-Centered Leadership, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991.

5. Adult and Family Services Division, Mission, Goals and Principles, May 1996. For more information about the JOBS program's principle-centered approach, contact Jim Fong, District 8 AFS Manager, (541)776-6186.

6. Freedman, S. And Friedlander, D., The JOBS Evaluation, report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.

7. Bardach, E., Improving the Productivity of JOBS Programs, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1993.

8. For more information about the barrier identification studies, a national welfare research database, and a list of employment barriers experienced by welfare applicants and recipients, contact Tom Drummond, M.A., Josephine County Mental Health Department, (541)474-5365.

9. Opulenti, M. And Mattaini, M.A., loc. cit.

10. Riccio, J., Freedman, S., and Harknett, K., Can They All Work?, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1995.

11. Neenan, P. And Orthner, D.K., Personal Traits and Attitudes of Entering JOBS Participants as Predictors of Post Program Earnings from Employment, workshop paper abstract, 1996.

12. Friedlander, D., Subgroup Impacts and Performance Indicators for Selected Welfare Employment Programs, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1988.

13. Hamilton, G., The JOBS Evaluation: Monthly Participation Rates, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1995.

14. For more information about the resource bank being developed in Josephine County, contact Tom Drummond, M.A., Josephine County Mental Health Department, (541)474-5365.

15. For more information about the multi-agency team approach and common performance measures in AFS District 8, contact Jim Fong, District 8 AFS Manager, (541)776-6186.

16. For more information on the Family Unity model, contact Doug Mares, Southern Region Manager, State Office of Services to Children and Families, Medford, Oregon, (541)776-6158.

17. Schorr, L., Within Our Reach, Anchor Books, 1988.

18. The journal Resiliency In Action provides in-depth information and research about the resiliency model. It is published quarterly by: Resiliency in Action, Inc., P. O. Box 45258, Rio Rancho, NM 87174-5258, (505)323-1031.

19. Drucker, P., Managing in a Time of Great Change, Truman Talley Books/Dutton, New York, 1995, p. 250-252.

20. Ibid.

21. Oregon Welfare Reform Work Group, An Investment Opportunity: Redesigning Oregon's Public Assistance System to Reduce Poverty by Placing More Oregonians in Jobs, March 1995.

22. Moore, James F., The Death of Competition - Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems, HarperCollins, New York, 1996, p. 272-277.

23. Governor John Kitzhaber, A Framework for Oregon's Human Investment Policies, July 1996.

24. For more information about Oregon's JOBS Plus program, contact Phil Laymon, JOBS Field Representative, Adult and Family Services Division, (503)945-6128, or Bob Kingzett, Assistant Director of Public Affairs, Jeld-Wen, (541)883-3451.

25. Example provided by Cascade Policy Institute, (503)242-0900. Project REACH can be contacted at: REACH, P. O. Box 5401, Meridian, MS 39307, (601)483-4505.

26. Example provided by Cascade Policy Institute, (503)242-0900. The business, called Fridays, can be contacted at: Fridays, P. O. Box 17475, Portland, OR 97217, (503)286-2590.

27. Senge, Peter, The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday Currency, 1990.

28. For more information on the Oregon Benchmarks, contact the Oregon Progress Board, (503)986-0039.

29. For more information about Oregon's welfare reform performance measures, contact Jim Fong, District 8 AFS Manager, (541)776-6186.