The comments below are from Jason Turner, Director, Capacity Building for Wisconsin Works--Wisconsin's welfare reform and jobs plan. Turner shared these ideas for state legislators committed to welfare reform that reduces caseload. He was featured at the recent American Legislative Exchange Council/Heritage Foundation welfare summit. (Paraphrased and used with permission.)
Legislative actions that perpetuate bureaucracy.
Philosophical admonitions in legislative language.
Increased funding for additional staff to accomplish stated legislative goals.
Decreased funding to limit staff working on tasks contrary to stated legislative goals.
General concepts of what works.
Decide what you want the bureaucratic organizations to accomplish.
Decide how you will measure their progress at accomplishing it.
Pay the organizations you want to carry out the objectives on a performance basis only, using your measurement yardstick.
Implementing "what works" concepts.
Setting Up A Performance System
Provide welfare agency with some of their anticipated budget as a base, e.g. 70%.
Require agency perform to a minimum standard, then pay incrementally as they exceed the minimum standard (e.g., $800/full-time job placement; $400/part-time).
Other measurable for-pay accomplishments: (e.g., $X/month per individuals in work experience slots, caseload reductions, increased caseload working 35 hrs/wk).
Publicize Measured Improvements and Reward High Achievers
Require welfare agencies to publish an annual report, measuring accomplishments according to legislated standards.
Set up press conferences to recognize high performing agency managers.
Decentralize decision making so local managers can accomplish goals in the best available way.
Privatize Local Agencies/Functions To Generate Competition With Public Sector
Set up private welfare demonstration units to test privatization and provide points of comparison with public agencies.
Use Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Flexibility To Privatize Service Operations
Allow public agencies to compete for business because it is fair to do so and will reduce political opposition.
Set up RFP by county or region to avoid problems inherent in any monopoly.
Privatization Alternative as Motivation for Change
Introduce legislation which requires the state to privatize in the event performance objectives are not met.
Introduce legislation requiring public agencies to justify their monopoly every budget period.
Divide Large Urban Areas Into Smaller Geographic Units and Bid Out To Best Providers
Dividing up large urban areas replicates a smaller agency environment - more conducive to interpersonal "connectedness."
If there are several providers in one urban area, the competition will generate better service and accountability.
Alternative to dividing up geographically: Require multiple agencies to compete county-wide for certain functions, e.g. welfare-to-work services. Measure and pay on success rates.
Generally Devolve Operations
Permit managers greater flexibility to achieve program objectives.
Eliminate process regulations in favor of outcome regulations.
Develop Alternative and Parallel Information Sources
Legislators should attend state and national welfare conferences and develop expertise; try to stay on relevant committees for a lengthy period.
Legislators should develop a group of conservative local welfare managers who can explain and who value accountability for what is going on at the "street level."
Legislators should go out into the field on a regular basis to talk to line staff and welfare recipients.
Use state think tanks as policy idea generators and evaluators.
Fight To Unlock Constraints To Effective Bureaucratic Management Imposed By Restrictive Work Rules
Allow agency to pay and promote its excellent people, and more easily downgrade consistent non-performers.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"