Work and Welfare Reform in New York City During the Giuliani Administration: A Study of Program Implementation

Demetra Smith NightingaleNancy PindusFredrica D. KramerJohn TrutkoKelly MikelsonMichael EgnerJuly 2002THE URBAN INSTITUTELABOR AND SOCIAL POLICY CENTER2100 M STREET, NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037www.urban.orgThis report was prepared with funding from The New York Community Trust and the New York City Human Resources Administration. Opinions are those of the authors and do not represent official positions of The New York Community Trust, the New York City Human Resources Administration, the Urban Institute, its Trustees or its sponsors.Work and Welfare Reformin New York City During the Giuliani Administration:A Study of Program Implementation WORK AND WELFARE IN NEW YORK CITY DURING THE GIULIANI ADMINISTRATION: A STUDY OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Highlights of Findings This July 2002 report was prepared by researchers at the Urban Institute in Washington, DC, with funding from the New York Community Trust and the New York City Human Resources Administration. Opinions are the authors’ and do not represent positions of the N.Y. Community Trust, NYC-HRA, the Urban Institute or its sponsors. Welfare reform became a major priority in New York City in the 1990s. Policies were work-centered throughout, but the focus and programs evolved over time. This report describes the work components of welfare as of late 2001, but does not analyze the quality of services provided or the effect on individuals or services. Various perspectives are incorporated, including HRA administrators, managers and staff, contractors, and community representatives. A SHIFT FROM WORKFARE TO MORE BLENDED WORK PROGRAMS Early Giuliani years (to mid-1999): strong emphasis on work requirements and workfare through the work experience program (WEP). At the end of 1996, over 30,000 persons were in WEP—three-quarters were in “basic” workfare only (i.e., unpaid work mainly in public agencies), the rest also were in training or another activity. Later Giuliani years (mid-1999 to 2001): continued emphasis on work and work requirements but a shift in WEP to allow and support more education and training in addition to workfare. Engaging all able-bodied adult recipients in some activity became a major priority. Only 12 percent of the 17,000 in WEP at the end of 2001 were in workfare alone; the rest were also in another activity. Several new programs provide training, treatment, and services to those with special needs (e.g., those with substance abuse problems, physical or mental health limitations, limited English, pregnant mothers, and mothers of newborns); participants often also must participate in WEP. EMPLOYMENT-FOCUSED ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM Conversion of local welfare offices into Job Centers. Line staff were reclassified as Job Opportunity Specialists, responsible for eligibility and case management; and a Job Center was created to serve clients with special needs. Contracting out for employment-related services. HRA developed performance-based contracts with 15 primary contractors, each with several subcontractors, most of which are non-profit organizations. Improved reporting and management systems. HRA standardized case processing; improved data systems; automated tracking of work-related performance by local offices, contractors, and City-wide. IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVING WORK-BASED WELFARE REFORM IN NEW YORK CITY Communicate current priorities. The message about work was fully communicated. More recent priorities should be similarly reinforced, especially the role of blending job training and special services with work. Streamline client pathways. HRA should examine ways to streamline the system from the client perspective (i.e., minimize travel, coordinate appointments, avoid redundant testing and other activities). Improve skills development programs. Some programs could be strengthened--especially those serving special populations or combining education, training, or treatment with work. This study did not examine the amount, intensity, or effectiveness of services; HRA should consider formal evaluations to address these important issues. Continue technological and staff development. HRA management and technological upgrades represent major improvements. The technology in all Job Centers should also be upgraded so staff can better manage and track their cases and services; and Center staff should receive more substantive and technological training. IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL WELFARE REFORM POLICIES Placing emphasis on strong work requirements and on skills development need not be incompatible. Nearly all adults on welfare in New York City have work requirements. The high proportion of clients with special needs meant offering developmental services in addition to job search and basic workfare. Flexibility in im