The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
About the Series
Assessing
the New Federalism is
a multi-year Urban Institute project designed to analyze the devolution of responsibility
from the federal government to the states for health care, income security,
employment and training programs, and social services. Researchers monitor program
changes and fiscal developments, along with changes in family well-being. The
project aims to provide timely nonpartisan information to inform public debate
and to help state and local decisionmakers carry out their new responsibilities
more effectively.
Key components of the project include
a household survey, studies of policies in 13 states, and a database with information
on all states and the District of Columbia, available at the Urban
Institute's Web site. This paper is one in a series of reports on the case
studies conducted in the 13 states, home to half of the nation's population.
The 13 states are Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Two case studies were conducted in each state, one focusing on income support
and social services, including employment and training programs, and the other
on health programs. These 26 reports describe the policies and programs in place
in the base year of this project, 1996. A second set of case studies to be prepared
in 1998 or 1999 will describe how states reshape programs and policies in response
to increased freedom to design social welfare and health programs to fit the
needs of their low-income populations.
The income support and social services
studies look at three broad areas. Basic income support for low-income families,
which includes cash and near-cash programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent
Children and Food Stamps, is one. The second area includes programs designed
to lessen the dependence of families on government-funded income support, such
as education and training programs, child care, and child support enforcement.
Finally, the reports describe what might be called the last-recourse safety
net, which includes child welfare, homeless programs, and other emergency services.
The health reports describe the
entire context of health care provision for the low-income population. They
cover Medicaid and similar programs, state policies regarding insurance, and
the role of public hospitals and public health programs.
In a study of the effects of shifting
responsibilities from the federal to state governments, one must start with
an understanding of where states stand. States have made highly varied decisions
about how to structure their programs. In addition, each state is working within
its own context of private-sector choices and political attitudes toward the
role of government. Future components of Assessing the New Federalism
will include studies of the variation in policy choices made by different states.
Contents
Methodological
Note
This case study of income support
and social service programs for low-income people in Mississippi is based on
interviews conducted in April 1997 and on our review of reports and other written
documents. Before beginning, we must acknowledge an unavoidable gap in our methodology
for this study of Mississippi. After we requested interviews with key officials
in the Office of the Governor and the Department of Human Services, Governor
Kirk Fordice responded that they would be unable to meet with us during our
visit. Since many executive branch officials did not meet with us, we are limited
in our ability to understand state policy options and choices. State officials
from the Department of Human Services did, however, review and comment on a
draft of this report. Their comments were used to clarify information on the
baseline status of policies and programs where applicable. Officials in other
agencies, including the Departments of Health and Education, were able to meet
with us, as were legislative officials, local service providers, advocates,
and other stakeholders.
Highlights of the Report
This report focuses on the baseline
conditions of cash assistance and social services in the state of Mississippi
as it embarks on the new welfare reforms specified in the federal Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA), in particular the replacement of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF).
State Overview
Mississippi is a predominantly rural
state: Approximately three-quarters of its 2.6 million residents live in nonmetropolitan
areas. The racial composition of Mississippians is mixed, with the largest portion
(nearly 40 percent) of black residents among all the states. The Hispanic and
noncitizen immigrant populations are very small but growing. Poverty levels
for the state as a whole and for children are 60 percent higher than national
averages. Also, a greater percentage of children are born to mothers out of
wedlock and live in one-parent families than in the nation as a whole. The rate
of births to teen mothers is the highest in the nation. Although the childhood
immunization rate is one of the highest among the states, in 1995 Mississippi
had the highest percentage of low birth-weight babies, the highest infant mortality
and child death rates, and the highest rate of teen deaths by accident, homicide,
and suicide. Economically, Mississippi is in a stronger position than at the
beginning of the 1990s, but the state's fiscal capacity is limited by a resource
base of a population whose per capita income is nearly 30 percent below the
national average. Overall, the governor is not an activist on issues regarding
dependent populations or children. The legislature often takes the lead on policy
in the areas of child care, child welfare, and child support.
Setting the Social Policy Context
Although Mississippi's economy has
boomed in recent years, particularly with the introduction of dockside gambling,
state expenditures on social programs remain controlled by budgetary measures
to limit government spending and by a political system that does not rank social
programs as a high priority. Thus, Mississippi does not have a cogent, coordinated
agenda for serving low-income families and children. However, specific issues
have attracted attention. For example, the initial debate over the WorkFirst
demonstration project in 1993 and more recent controversy over the privatization
of social services were important policy concerns for both the governor and
the legislature. Education, corrections, and economic development and job creation
have ranked high on the governor's agenda in recent years.
The shift in 1992 of the Department
of Human Services from an independent to an executive agency gave the governor
greater authority over the department than his predecessors had. Governor Fordice
has used this authority to reorient the agency perspective on social services
toward one focused on limited, temporary assistance and work.
The state has made recent strides
in the areas of child health and education. The infant mortality rate declined
in Mississippi between 1992 and 1995, from 11.9 per 1,000 births to 10.5 per
1,000 births. In addition, the state now has a rate of immunization among preschoolers
that, at 83 percent, is the sixth highest in the nation. In education, a 1 percent
tax increase in 1992 created the Education Enhancement Fund, which eventually
will provide an additional $130 million in state money per year for education.
Many in the state view the legislation to implement this fund as a progressive,
proactive step that may not have been possible in the state even a few years
earlier.
Mississippi is still at the beginning
of reforming its safety net for low-income families and children who are dependent
on cash assistance. Some early decisions indicate that the governor will continue
to set the overarching tone of job creation and quick labor force attachment
as methods to increase personal responsibility and decrease dependency.
Administrative Structure
Policy control over social services
in Mississippi remains at the state level, and employees in local offices are
state employees. The Department of Human Services and the Department of Economic
and Community Development are responsible for general administration and oversight
of programs to support low-income families and their children. The former agency
houses welfare, child welfare, emergency services, and child care, while the
latter administers the funding of the Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA)
and plays a large role in emergency shelter and homeless programs.
Devolution of control from the state
to local governments does not occur in social service delivery in Mississippi,
but there is a great deal of devolution of administration to district or local
intermediary entities. With the exception of welfare and child welfare services
(which are generally provided by the local offices of the Department of Human
Services), the state relies heavily on a district/local level infrastructure
to support many social programs. This infrastructure includes 10 Planning and
Development Districts (PDDs) that have assumed expanded functions since their
creation in the late 1960s, including the new case management duties of the
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program and the required voucher program
of the Child Care Development Block Grant. In addition to PDDs, Community Action
Agencies (CAAs) are also now more heavily involved in the local administration
of social programs, most heavily in the areas of child care and emergency services.
Reliance on PDDs and CAAs means that direct service administration is often
moved out of state departments. With employment and training, child care, and
emergency services, there is little but a policy role for the state's Departments
of Human Services and Economic and Community Development.
Basic Income Support
Mississippi ranks low among the states
in percentage of poor persons in families with children who receive AFDC, and
it ranks lowest among all the states in level of monthly payments for families
on welfare. In 1995, only 29.9 percent of the total number of poor persons in
families with children in Mississippi received AFDC, compared with about 47
percent nationwide. Only seven states had lower percentages of AFDC receipt
among poor persons in families with children. The maximum monthly benefit for
a family of three in the state has remained unchanged since 1985, at $120-the
lowest of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, food stamp
benefits are the major source of income for most AFDC recipients. A family of
three that receives the maximum AFDC benefit of $120 a month is likely to receive,
in addition, about $315 a month in food stamp benefits.
The state is one of six that does
not provide an optional state supplement to recipients of the federal Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program for elderly and disabled individuals. Mississippi
also does not operate a general assistance program, nor do any of its counties.
Therefore, income assistance for families in need of support in the state consists
primarily of food stamps and AFDC (now TANF), both of which are substantially
federally funded.
Since 1993, Mississippi has enacted
a series of welfare reforms resulting in changes to the AFDC program that focus
on increasing parental responsibility and work participation and decreasing
caseloads. Mississippi's waiver program, "A New Direction Demonstration Program,"
was implemented between October 1995 and January 1996. WorkFirst, the centerpiece
of the waiver demonstration, served as the model for the state's TANF program.
WorkFirst sought to increase work participation through strict work requirements,
the toughest sanctions in the country (the penalty for not complying with work
requirements was loss of the entire AFDC and food stamp benefit for the entire
family), subsidized job placements, and less restricted transitional services.
At the same time that the state introduced WorkFirst in six counties, it also
created a "one-stop shop" of integrated welfare and job placement services to
support the emphasis placed on immediate job search.
The WorkFirst program has received
considerable support from the governor. Independent evaluators of the waiver
demonstration found that caseloads in the six WorkFirst counties declined 34.3
percent compared with caseload declines of 22.3 percent in counties that did
not implement WorkFirst. The evaluation also reported a high number of sanctions
resulting in benefit termination in the six WorkFirst counties. After the first
six quarters of WorkFirst, about 19 percent of the total number of WorkFirst
clients had received at least one sanction. Mississippi's TANF program is based
on WorkFirst, with slight modifications, including a reduction in the severity
of sanctions for adult recipients who don't comply with work requirements.
Programs That Promote Financial
Independence
To help promote self-sufficiency,
cash assistance programs often need to be supplemented with employment and training,
subsidized child care, child support collection efforts, and health insurance
coverage.
Employment and Training
Under welfare reform, Mississippi
has increasingly moved away from assistance with education or training for welfare
recipients toward the goal of quick labor force attachment, as evidenced in
the WorkFirst approach. In contrast, education and training programs are more
widely available to the lower income population not necessarily on welfare,
through JTPA funding and One-Stop Career Centers. These differing approaches
stem from different goals. Employment services for the welfare population (through
JOBS/WorkFirst) are predominantly led by the goal of increasing personal responsibility
through work and decreasing dependency on public aid. For the nonwelfare low-income
population, the JTPA programs and One-Stop Career Centers focus on economic
development through strengthening the state's workforce in high-demand occupations
that are determined by the state.
Three pillars of administration govern
employment and training services in the state. At one end is the Department
of Human Services, which administers JOBS/WorkFirst funding exclusively for
the welfare population. At the other end is the State Workforce Development
Advisory Board and the District Boards that oversee the 15 One-Stop Career Centers
that cater largely to the blue-collar population. In between, the Department
of Economic and Community Development administers JTPA funding, serving both
the welfare and nonwelfare low-income population.
The One-Stop Career Centers, created
through the Workforce Education Act of 1994, are supported through state and
corporate funding and are largely independent from JTPA and JOBS/WorkFirst activities.
A State Workforce Development Advisory Council sets the agendas for the career
centers, which are staffed and organized locally by community colleges. Center
services include recruitment, skills assessment, counseling, and referral services
to training or job placements; preemployment training for those with no experience
in the private enterprise system; basic literary skills training and high school
equivalency education; vocational and technical training; and short-term skills
training for JTPA participants. Although the centers are available to all, 75
percent of training services are provided to blue-collar workers. Welfare recipients
are not directed to the centers for services but do at times end up finding
them or seeking them out on their own.
Child Care
Mississippi serves a very small percentage
of the children in families eligible for child care assistance. Estimates by
the Mississippi Forum for Children and Families suggest that if the child care
system functioned at its most efficient level, it could still meet the needs
of only 10 percent of the total eligible population. The subsidized child care
system in Mississippi is heavily reliant on federal funding and has been structured
according to the various federal funding sources available. This structure has
created a complex system with various avenues for entry and no assurance of
assistance as a family's eligibility changes, particularly from welfare recipient
to working poor. The limited state resources devoted to child care further restrict
the state's ability to provide assistance as an important support to work or
as an avenue for the low-income population to access child development programs.
Child care for working AFDC recipients, JOBS/WorkFirst participants, and Transitional
Child Care (TCC) flows through the Division of Economic Assistance of the Department
of Human Services, with an emphasis on child care as a support to work. The
Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the Social Services Block Grant,
and At-Risk funding flow through the Office for Children and Youth of the Department
of Human Services.
Across this system, subsidy levels,
family copayments, and provider reimbursement rates are universal. However,
the system is not seamless administratively nor for families as they make transitions
in their child care eligibility status. The vouchers themselves and the applications
for subsidies are similar, but a different application must be made depending
on the funding stream accessed, and these applications are found at different
locations within an area.
Although there is no direct competition
between the welfare and nonwelfare populations to receive subsidies, there is
heavy competition among all families to access assistance. Every provider, advocate,
and child care management agency respondent agreed that there are waiting lists
at both the provider and the management agency levels.
In 1995, the state passed legislation
that authorized a 25 percent tax credit for employers providing dependent care
during working hours; this was expanded to a 50 percent tax credit during the
1997 legislative session. Businesses can use the credit to establish on-site
child care or to build alliances with networks of providers for which the employer
will subsidize care for the children of its employees. There is a sense that
this is the last major option available in the state to help address the need
for child care.
Child Support
The Division of Child Support Enforcement
was established in the state in 1990 and manages the state-run program, with 84
offices under the purview of the state's Department of Human Services. The efficiency
of child support collections in Mississippi is low relative to many states, and,
in most regards, the child support program meets but does not exceed federal requirements.
In recent years, however, child support enforcement has made progress as a result
of several innovations. These include an automated system that has improved the
state's ability to locate absent parents and make child support collections, a
state paternity program begun in 1994 that is an in-hospital acknowledgment of
paternity required by the federal government, and a license suspension program
that preceded federal law requiring that states authorize such programs. These
innovations appear to have paid off. Total collections in FY 1996 reached $84.6
million, up from $62 million the previous year. Paternities and obligations established
have also increased substantially.
Medicaid and Other Health Insurance
Medicaid currently is the only health
insurance program for low-income families in Mississippi. A relatively high
proportion (16 percent) of all state residents rely on Medicaid for health coverage.
Spending per Medicaid enrollee in 1995-at $2,377-was about 26 percent less than
the national average. However, the state has extended its coverage for pregnant
women and infants up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), which
is more generous than the federal requirement of 133 percent of the FPL. In
1997, legislation was passed calling for statewide implementation of HealthMACS,
a managed care plan. Beyond Medicaid, community health centers are important
for the delivery of health care to the low-income and uninsured populations
in Mississippi. These centers provide a health care safety net in this rural
state, which has a substantial shortage of health professionals. The proportion
of state residents seen at community health centers is three times higher than
the national average. The state has the opportunity to expand health care coverage
to the uninsured, especially children. It is eligible for $58 billion in federal
funding through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but a state match
of $10.7 million is needed to access these funds.
Last-Resort Safety Net Programs
Although one of the goals of devolution
is to promote the well-being of children and families, it is important to consider
what might happen to families for whom the new rules and programs do not work
as designed. Child welfare and housing emergency services have existed for a
long time to "pick up the pieces" when families cannot cope.
Child Welfare
Child welfare services are administered
at the state level by the Division of Family and Children's Services within
the Department of Human Services. This system of services is in a period of
policy- and practice-related transition. The direction for change has largely
been determined by the state's request for technical assistance from the federal
Administration for Children and Families and from the state's completion of
its five-year Child and Family Services Plan, with the assistance of the Social
Science Research Center of Mississippi State University. The division's policy
orientation has changed recently from an emphasis on child protection toward
one on family preservation and family reunification. The change in focus stemmed
from the division's dissatisfaction with its delivery of services, especially
the lack of resources for prevention or family preservation supports. Only one
family preservation program existed in 1994, but since then the state has used
the catalyst of federal funding for family preservation and family support to
launch partnerships with community-based organizations to increase family preservation
services. Change takes time, however. Estimated expenditures for FY 1996 indicate
that 65 percent of the total budget was directed toward children in out-of-home
placement; placement services made up 8 percent, intervention services 16 percent,
and family preservation and family support activities 10 percent of the total
estimated expenditures.
Mississippi passed legislation in
1997 to force state review of child status reports more frequently, to prevent
children from languishing for extended periods in substitute care. The law calls
for action to return the child home or to begin litigation to terminate parental
rights within six months of removal from the home for children under age three
and within nine months for older children. Variation exists at the local level
in how this and other child welfare policies are being implemented.
Emergency Services and Housing
Mississippi does not have an integrated
emergency assistance program at the state level. Emergency assistance support
and programs for the homeless have been pieced together through the patchwork
of available federal funding. Two state departments serve as pass-throughs for
federal funding to flow to the local level for service provision, and programs
essentially mirror the federal funding streams. Mississippi does not access
Title IV-A Emergency Assistance federal funding, and does not contribute any
state funding to services to prevent homelessless or to provide emergency assistance.
Nonprofit providers are the backbone of the delivery structure for all emergency
assistance and homeless services within the state. There is a great deal of
discretion in service provision at the local level, and no entities oversee
or license emergency shelters at the state or local level. However, some nonprofits
have created their own informal networks to serve as coordinating bodies among
nonprofit providers in local areas. In 1995, the Division of Community Services,
which administers the main federal funding streams to prevent homelessness (the
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant),
encouraged local-level service providers to adopt a case management approach
to assistance. This represented a shift from solely meeting immediate needs
to helping clients move toward self-sufficiency.
Implications of the New Welfare
Reform Legislation
The welfare reform of 1996 did not
change the direction of reform in Mississippi, but it did have three major effects
on reform efforts. First, it resulted in increased federal funding for welfare
in the state, at least in the short term. Mississippi received a TANF block
grant of $86.7 million for federal fiscal year 1997, an estimated $31 million
more than it would have received if it had continued to operate AFDC.
Second, PRWORA accelerated the pace
of reforms in Mississippi by putting welfare reform back on the agenda of legislators
and other officials. Although the New Direction Demonstration Program had been
implemented less than a year before, the federal law and required state response
prompted legislators to revisit their welfare reform initiatives and extend
the core of the demonstration statewide earlier than planned. In addition, through
the legislative process, a number of provisions were added to the state's plan
that were more lenient on victims of domestic violence and that allowed for
college enrollment of welfare recipients, as long as they still met the 20-hour-per-week
work requirement. Most significantly, the state reduced the severity of its
sanctions. Although adult recipients who are out of compliance with work requirements
lose their Medicaid benefits for the period of the sanction, food stamp benefits
are no longer interrupted as a result of sanctions governing TANF receipt.
Third, the federal welfare reform
law included a number of state options that had not been addressed in Mississippi's
own welfare reform efforts, notably time limits. The state generally adopted
the federal guidelines for specific reform components that it had not yet considered.
For example, the time limit in Mississippi is the five-year total and the work
requirement is the 20-hour-per-week minimum, both set at the federal level.
The state has thus adopted the most lenient requirements allowable under new
federal law.
Cash assistance from AFDC has never
been a significant resource to low-income families in the state. Instead, federal
sources-including food stamps, SSI, and emergency food and utility assistance-have
provided the critical resources. Therefore, using the TANF program to affect
behavior, as intended by the federal welfare legislation, may be more difficult
in Mississippi, because retention of the low cash benefit is not a strong motivator.
In addition, the state faces other
challenges in moving recipients from welfare to work, especially in areas of
high unemployment and limited transportation to jobs outside the area. Respondents
were most concerned about the supports necessary for a successful transition
from welfare to work. For example, the state has ended the "entitlement" to
child care for families on welfare. State legislation now asserts that child
care may, rather than shall, be provided as a support to public assistance recipients.
Another concern exists among local-level service providers and the nonprofit
community-the primary players in the delivery of social services to low-income
families in Mississippi. They question how much further they can stretch their
limited resources in an era of potentially increasing need.
Introduction
Mississippi has built the core of its social welfare programs
for low-income families around federally funded programs. It is not an activist
state in the area of social services, and the structure of its social services
is fragmented, perhaps because the programs have been developed to meet needs
of federal funding requirements rather than as the result of a comprehensive
state vision. In one respect this may limit the state's ability to take on full
responsibility for the design and implementation of social service programs
resulting from block grants. Yet the state has already made progress down the
road of welfare reform that, to some degree, lessens the policy changes necessary
because of federal welfare legislation.
This report focuses on the findings of our case study in
Mississippi, which was designed to provide a broad picture of the state's social
safety net for low-income families with children. This case study examines the
current goals, policies, practices, organizational structure, funding, and recent
changes in a wide variety of programs serving children and their families. Our
review covers income support, employment and training, and child care programs
targeted to low-income families. We also examine how other programs, such as
child welfare and emergency services, work to assist low-income families in
crisis, and how teen pregnancy prevention efforts address the highest teen birthrate
in the nation.
Researchers from the Urban Institute and Child Trends visited
Mississippi in April 1997, eight months after the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was signed into law. The
state had begun limited implementation of its own version of welfare reform
in October 1995. We were able to conduct only a limited number of interviews
at the state level, but we spoke with legislators, city administrators, providers,
and advocates in both Vicksburg (Warren County) and Jackson (Hinds County) in
order to develop a picture of state and local programs and issues.
This report begins with a discussion of the characteristics
of the state in terms of its population, economic condition, and political environment.
The next section provides an overview of the state's agenda for serving the
needs of low-income families, covers state spending on social services, and
presents a description of the service delivery structure. The three subsequent
sections describe the three broad social program areas—income support for low-income
families, policies for moving families toward financial independence, and programs
that provide a safety net for families in crisis. The next section describes
the particular service delivery challenges that Mississippi faces in providing
support to low-income families and the innovations the state has implemented.
The report concludes with a discussion of the implications of federal welfare
legislation for low-income families in Mississippi.
Mississippi: A
Brief Overview
This section provides an overview of Mississippi's social,
economic, and political environment, describing the attitudes and resources
that shape state policy. With its high rate of poverty, Mississippi has a potentially
large dependent population. While the economy has boomed in recent years, particularly
with the introduction of dockside gambling, state expenditures on social programs
are restricted by budgetary measures that limit government spending and by a
political system that does not rank social programs high on its agenda.
The Population
Mississippi is a predominantly rural state, with approximately
three-quarters of its 2.6 million residents living in nonmetropolitan areas.
The population of the state increased 4.7 percent from 1990 to 1995, just under
the national average of 5.6 percent overall population growth (see table
1). The racial composition of Mississippi residents is mixed, with the largest
portion (nearly 40 percent) of black residents among all the states. The Hispanic
and noncitizen immigrant populations are very small but growing.
The state has a high poverty rate of 22.8 percent, and one
out of every three children in Mississippi lives in poverty. A greater percentage
of children than in the nation as a whole are born out of wedlock (nearly half
the children born in 1994) and live in one-parent families. The rate of births
to teen mothers, at 76 per 1,000 female teens in 1996, is the highest in the
nation and has been for some time.
The childhood immunization rate is one of the highest among
the states at 83 percent, and is continually improving because of the development
of a statewide immunization registry and outreach campaign.1
Other measures of child health and well-being are less encouraging. In 1995,
Mississippi had the highest percentage of low birth-weight babies; the highest
infant mortality and child death rates; and the highest rate of teen deaths
by accident, homicide, and suicide of all 50 states. For older children and
adolescents, however, the state had lower juvenile crime arrest rates in 1995
than 37 other states, even though this rate has increased in the state over
the past 10 years. Overall, Mississippi was ranked second to last among the
states in a composite rating of 10 selected measures of child well-being.2
The Economic Environment
Mississippi entered the 1990s, as did many states, with
a sluggish economy and expenditures outpacing revenues. The balance in the state's
General Fund fell from $84 million in July 1989 to $4.9 million in June 1990,
even while budget cuts were made. Yet Mississippi's unemployment rate in the
early 1990s was much improved over the double-digit rates of the mid-1980s.
In addition, per capita income had increased 70 percent since 1980.3
When Mississippi's state budget began this downward turn,
the legislature approved dockside gambling, limiting casinos to the Gulf Coast
counties and counties bordering the Mississippi River. By fiscal year (FY) 1992,
gaming revenues were beginning to strengthen the General Fund, but the much-improved
General Fund balance in this year was largely the result of a 1 percent increase
in the sales tax (which was directed toward education) and the downsizing of
state government by 500 employees.
In FY 1993, revenues of $41.3 million from the casino industry
were three times higher than state projections. All the economic news in Mississippi
was positive, with the unemployment rate falling in 81 of the state's 82 counties
to 6.4 percent statewide—a 22 percent improvement over the previous year—and
strong economic growth that was outpacing the nation as a whole.4
Gaming revenues again were high in FY 1994 but have since
slowed to a more moderate but healthy level as the initial expansion of the
industry subsides. After a three-year period of strong performance, Mississippi's
economy began to slow slightly in 1995. For the first time in four years, the
state spent more than it brought in, and the General Fund balance declined;
however, the unemployment rate in 1995, at 5.9 percent, was the lowest it had
been in 16 years.5 With the budget in solid shape
after a few strong years, and amid signs that casino industry revenues had reached
a comfortable plateau, efforts to limit government spending were implemented.
A measure known as the "98 percent rule" was enacted during the 1992 legislative
session and was fully incorporated into the appropriations process in FY 1994.
This 98 percent rule capped expenditures for each fiscal year at a level no
higher than 98 percent of total projected revenues for that year.
Overall, Mississippi is now in a stronger position economically
than at the beginning of the decade. Per capita income increased from 1990 to
1995 by 31.3 percent to $16,683, although this level still falls below the national
average of $23,208 (see table 1). The state's unemployment
rate of 6.1 percent in 1996 remains low, but it is still higher than the national
unemployment rate of 5.4 percent.
While the economic outlook for Mississippi has become more
positive in recent years, the state remains one of the poorest in the nation.
Poverty levels for children and for Mississippi residents as a whole remain
60 percent higher than the national average. The state's fiscal capacity is
limited by a population whose per capita income is nearly 30 percent below the
national average and has been for many years. The state relies on a regressive
tax system to generate revenues, with a high sales tax and a low income tax
relative to national averages. It also relies heavily on federal funding sources
to augment its budget, with the federal government providing nearly three dollars
for every two dollars of state funds for overall expenditures in 1996.6
The Political Environment
Political power in Mississippi is distributed among a number
of independent bodies. There is a sense of equitable if not necessarily shared
influence over state functions between the governor and the legislature. Much
of this shared influence stems from the organization of state agencies, some
of which fall under the governor's purview and some of which are independent
agencies. For example, the Department of Economic and Community Development
(DECD) and the Department of Human Services (DHS) are executive branch agencies,
while the Department of Health (DOH) is independent. Independent agencies are
governed by boards whose members are appointed by the governor. The governor
maintains indirect influence through these appointments, but independent agencies
must deal more directly with the legislature in negotiating budgets and significant
policy changes. With the mix of executive and independent agencies, state agency
heads do not function together as a cabinet, a situation that results in a number
of horizontal power bases within the state government structure.
There was not a great deal of reported policy coordination
between the governor and the legislature, which can be explained in part by
party differences: Governor Kirk Fordice is Republican and Democrats make up
the majority of both legislative bodies (see table 1). Overall,
the governor is not portrayed as an activist on issues regarding dependent populations
or children. The legislature often takes the lead on policy in the areas of
child care, child welfare, and child support. The significant exception was
the initial round of welfare reform in the state. Governor Fordice put welfare
reform on the state agenda in 1993 and strongly supported the WorkFirst demonstration
project that emerged from this process. Welfare reform with an emphasis on work
complements the governor's emphasis on economic and workforce development in
the state. With social policy in general, however, the same handful of legislators
and advocates were consistently identified as the leaders in this area, suggesting
that the political power base for these issues is relatively small.
Setting the Social
Policy Context
This section describes Mississippi's policy orientation
for helping low-income families. Following its discussion of policy commitments,
the section reviews state and local spending on social welfare programs and
the programs' organizational structure. This information provides important
background for understanding the structure and approach of the major social
welfare programs in place during 1996 and early 1997, which we review later
in the report.
Mississippi's Agenda for Serving
Low-Income Families
Mississippi does not have a cogent, coordinated agenda for
serving low-income families and children. The state has used federal funding
streams to provide support to these families but has not developed a broader
state or local infrastructure to create a strong system of assistance. While
the economic environment limits the state's ability to address social welfare
needs, the political environment also limits the will to do so.
Social policy has not ranked high on the state's agenda
in recent years, although specific issues have attracted significant amounts
of attention during certain periods. For example, the initial debate over the
WorkFirst demonstration project in 1993 and the more recent controversy over
the privatization of social services were important policy concerns for both
the governor and the legislature. Education, corrections, and economic development
and job creation have ranked high on the governor's agenda in recent years.
While Governor Fordice plays only a limited role in agenda
setting and policymaking for social services in Mississippi, he has more direct
control than his predecessors over such programs. During the 1992 legislative
session, the five-member State Board of Human Services was abolished, shifting
the Department of Human Services from an independent to an executive agency.
This move gave the governor the ability, with Senate confirmation, to directly
appoint the DHS's executive director. The governor has used this authority to
reorient the agency's perspective on social services toward one focused on limited,
temporary assistance centered around work, policies that are interpreted to
be in line with his focus on economic development. Since the reorganization
of DHS, WorkFirst has been introduced and an emphasis on case management has
been implemented in the area of emergency services.
The state recently has made strides in the areas of child
health and education. An Infant Mortality Task Force was created in 1992 to
address the state's high infant mortality rate and recommend improvements in
infant and maternal health care programs. The infant mortality rate declined
from 11.9 per 1,000 births in 1992 to 10.5 per 1,000 births in 1995.7
In addition, a statewide immunization registry has helped improve on-time immunizations
among children under the age of two, and the state now has an immunization rate
among preschoolers of 83 percent,8 the sixth highest
in the nation. The 1 percent tax increase of 1992 created the Education Enhancement
Fund, with millions of dollars to help schools renovate buildings and purchase
equipment and teaching supplies. During the week of our site visit to Mississippi,
the legislature narrowly overrode a veto of Governor Fordice to pass an education
equity-funding bill, the Adequate Education Program. The program will be phased
in over the next six years and will eventually provide an additional $130 million
in state money per year toward education (the cost was the primary reason for
the governor's veto). The goal of the program, which took effect July 1, 1997,
is to ensure that each school district can meet mid-level accreditation standards
regardless of the local tax base. A number of respondents saw this legislation
as a progressive, proactive step that might not have been possible in the state
even a few years ago.
Mississippi is still at the beginning of its journey toward
reforming its safety net for low-income families and children who are dependent
on cash assistance. Some early decisions indicate that the governor will continue
to advocate job creation and quick labor force attachment to increase personal
responsibility and decrease dependency on the state. For example, the prevailing
mood governing employment and training services is that welfare recipients are
ready to work, and therefore there is little need to invest in skill training.
In addition, Mississippi chose not to seek a waiver for time limits on able-bodied
Food Stamp program participants in high unemployment areas. Able-bodied adults
ages 18–50 make up less than 20 percent of the work registrants in the state's
Food Stamp program and receive 80 percent of Food Stamp employment and training
dollars as per federal law.9
Organization of Services and Administrative
Structure
Social services in Mississippi are delivered through a state-administered
system, meaning that policy control remains at the state level and employees
in local offices are state employees. Two state departments, DHS and DECD, are
responsible for general administration and oversight of programs to support
low-income families and their children (see table 2). DHS
was created from seven separate agencies through a government reorganization
in 1989 (Mississippi Executive Branch Reorganization Act). As a result, welfare,
child welfare, emergency child support, and child care services that were administered
by separate entities are now administered by DHS. It is the primary agency for
social programs in the state. DECD took on a larger role in emergency shelter
and homeless programs beginning in 1996 but has always administered the funding
of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA).
Devolution of control from the state to local governments
does not occur in social service delivery in Mississippi, but there is a great
deal of devolution of administration to district or local intermediary entities.
With the exception of welfare and child welfare services, the state relies heavily
on a district/local-level infrastructure to support many social programs. The
primary administrative players at the sub-state level are the state's 10 Planning
and Development Districts (PDDs) and local Community Action Agencies (CAAs).
PDDs were created in Mississippi in the late 1960s as intergovernmental bodies
to address issues from a regional perspective. PDDs received state and local
monies initially to implement regional economic development plans, including
placement of industrial parks, employer diversification, and building skilled
workforces within each region. In the 1990s, their role has expanded into issues
related to dependent populations. CAAs are quasi-government agencies that are
funded primarily through federal funds, either directly through such programs
as Head Start, or as a pass-through from the state through such programs as
the Community Services Block Grant.
The introduction of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
funding with the passage of the Family Support Act of 1988 and additional child
care funding through the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) greatly
expanded the role of both PDDs and CAAs in social service delivery in Mississippi.
The state, in need of an infrastructure to handle the new case management duties
of JOBS and the required voucher program of CCDBG, turned largely to the PDDs
as a system already in existence. Initially all JOBS and CCDBG funding was contracted
to PDDs for administration, but over time these contracts have diversified across
both PDDs and CAAs.
Reliance on PDDs and CAAs means that direct service administration
often is not provided through state departments. For employment and training,
child care, and emergency services, there is little but a policy role for DHS
and DECD. DHS does provide direct administration of welfare services and the
majority of child welfare services through its 84 local offices (typically one
per county).
There are a number of services for which little formal or
coordinated infrastructure exists at all at the state level, and there is a
heavy reliance on nonprofit organizations for collaboration of service delivery.
For example, absent any state-run emergency assistance program, DECD and DHS
serve largely as grants administrators for federal funding to flow to local
emergency services and shelter programs. Further, a request-for-proposal (RFP)
process has been used to collect and collate local-level proposals for use of
federal abstinence education funding made available in conjunction with federal
welfare legislation. In these proposals, local-level providers must produce
the matching funds necessary to access federal funding.
Social Welfare Spending and Coverage
Mississippi devoted approximately 11 percent of its FY 1996
$2.7 billion state budget to social welfare programs. If state matching funds
for Medicaid are deducted from this total, state spending on the safety net
programs described in this report amounted to $93.6 million, 3.5 percent of
the total state budget.10
Spending on social welfare programs in Mississippi is extremely
dependent upon the various federal funding streams for such programs. Mississippi
has a very high federal matching rate to state dollars committed to many social
programs in recognition of its limited state resources. In FY 1996, federal
funding accounted for nearly 70 percent of total social welfare spending in
the state (not including Medicaid). There are limited examples of state general
fund expenditures for social welfare programs beyond requirements for matching
funds to access federal dollars. Therefore, increases and decreases in spending
shown in table 3 are largely the result of caseload shifts
or changes in federal funding requirements. For example, the reductions in AFDC
benefits, food stamps, and child nutrition programs are the result of decreases
in the number of families qualifying for or seeking such assistance because
of an improved economy and program changes over recent years. The large increase
in JOBS funding is also the result of program participation and not an increased
state commitment to the program. In Mississippi, JOBS was implemented statewide
beginning in 1992; before then JOBS funding was active in only 16 of the state's
82 counties. Another area with a significant increase was family preservation
activities, as Mississippi began to access federal funding—with a state match—for
these programs in 1994.
There are other social welfare programs for which federal
funding is available, but the state chooses not to pursue such funding. Mississippi
does not have an emergency assistance program, even though federal Title IV-A
Emergency Assistance matching funds have been available at a 50 percent match
rate. The state also did not access federal Title IV-A child care funds under
the At-Risk category. The funding shown in the state/local column in table
3 for this category is provided by the city of Jackson. The state will not
provide the necessary match from General Fund dollars but will serve as a pass-through
for local governments interested in receiving At-Risk child care federal funding
available for Mississippi.
The gaming revenues that have benefited the state in recent
years have been directed to prison construction and maintenance, mental health
programs, and education—programs that fall mostly under the domain of independent
agencies. The 10 executive branch agencies have had stagnant budgets during
Governor Fordice's term in office beginning in 1992. The governor's emphasis
on controlling government spending and the budget process in Mississippi limit
budget increases among the executive branch agencies. The governor submits a
budget for these 10 agencies to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), while independent
agencies submit their requests directly to the legislature. The LBB makes recommendations
to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for baseline budgets—funds absolutely
necessary to carry out state functions according to federal mandates and new
state laws. Budget increases for creating new programs or enhancing existing
programs that are not required by state or federal laws are not included in
the LBB's budget recommendations; their approval is left entirely up to the
legislature.
There are limited contributions to social welfare programs
at the local level. As mentioned previously, At-Risk child care matching dollars
are provided by local government. Outside of this, however, there are no formal
local contributions to the programs listed in table 3. The
board of supervisors in each county makes funding decisions, and some counties
elect to provide funding for programs to benefit low-income families and their
children. For example, in Warren County, a special property tax funds emergency
services, including a county shelter for homeless children.
Basic Income Support Programs
The state system for income support in Mississippi is limited
to serving the needs of the high population of low-income residents in the state.
Historically, Mississippi has had the lowest monthly payments for families on
welfare in the nation. Because a large number of families qualify for assistance,
the state has limited benefit levels as one method of managing costs.
Mississippi is one of six states that does not provide an
optional state supplement to participants in the federal Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) program for elderly and disabled individuals. The state also does
not operate a General Assistance program, nor do any of its counties; therefore,
income assistance for families in Mississippi consists primarily of food stamps
and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC—now Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, or TANF), both of which are substantially federally funded.11
Income support issues, however, have moved onto the agenda
of Mississippi policymakers in recent years. Since 1993, Mississippi has enacted
a series of welfare reforms resulting in changes to the AFDC program that focus
on increasing parental responsibility and work participation and decreasing
caseloads. While the Food Stamp program is the larger of the two major income
support programs in Mississippi, this section will primarily discuss the AFDC
program (prior to federal welfare reform in 1996), which has been the focus
of welfare reform efforts.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Caseload Trends and Benefit Levels
As in most other states, AFDC caseloads have been decreasing
in Mississippi in recent years. The average monthly caseload fell from a high
of about 61,000 families in 1992 to a little over 46,000 in 1996, a 24 percent
decline over four years (see figure 1). Consequently, combined federal and state
annual spending on AFDC benefits decreased from $89.2 million in 1992 to $75.1
million in 1995.
In 1995, only 29.9 percent of the total number of poor persons
in families with children in Mississippi received AFDC, compared with about
47 percent nationwide. Only seven states had lower percentages of AFDC participation
among poor persons in families with children. This can be explained, in part,
by the low benefit levels of Mississippi's AFDC program. The maximum monthly
benefit for a family of three in Mississippi is $120, a figure that has remained
unchanged since 1985. This benefit is the lowest of the 50 states and the District
of Columbia and only 11.8 percent of the federal poverty level. As a result,
food stamps are the major source of income for most AFDC recipients. A family
of three that receives the maximum AFDC benefit of $120 a month is likely to
receive, in addition, about $315 per month in food stamp benefits.12
Although benefits are low, families with some earned income
can fare better in Mississippi than in other low-benefit states because of the
method of benefit calculation. When compared with these states, Mississippi
is more generous in its treatment of earnings, enabling families to continue
to receive some level of benefits as their income grows. For example, a family
of three in Mississippi can continue receiving some AFDC benefit until their
total earned income reaches about 44 percent of the poverty level. Nationally,
the amount of income the same family can earn as a percentage of the poverty
level and still maintain AFDC benefits averages 67 percent.13
While Mississippi's average remains below this national average, it is well
above that of some other low-benefit states such as Alabama, which terminates
all assistance at 24 percent of the poverty level. Despite this incentive to
combine earnings with AFDC benefits, only about 9 percent of the Mississippi
caseload had earnings in 1995, slightly less than the national average.
The vast majority of families (75.8 percent) receiving assistance
in Mississippi are families headed by a single adult. While this is similar
to most other states, Mississippi differs in its consistently low number of
AFDC-Unemployed Parent (UP) cases. Over the past few years, it has had the lowest
percentage of such cases in the country. In 1993, only 0.3 percent of all Mississippi
AFDC cases were UP cases; in 1994 and 1995, only 0.1 percent of cases were UP
cases (42 of Mississippi's approximately 52,000 cases). Nationally, UP cases
have accounted for about 7 percent of total AFDC cases for the past three years.
In 1995, only South Dakota had a lower absolute number of UP cases.
Recent Innovations, Changes, and Waivers
Mississippi initiated welfare reform legislation in April
1993 with the passage of Senate Bill 2718 in the Mississippi Legislature. This
bill, known as the Mississippi Welfare Restructuring Program Act, mandated that
DHS seek waivers from the federal government to alter its AFDC program. These
program modifications were implemented mainly through demonstration components
in a limited number of counties, but there were some statewide changes. The
resulting waiver, the New Direction Demonstration Program involving changes
to both AFDC and the Food Stamp program, was approved by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on December
22, 1994, and implemented between October 1995 and January 1996.14
The New Direction Demonstration Program contained many provisions
similar to those in demonstration programs designed by other states, such as
a family cap, an extension of transitional services, and the development of
subsidized work positions. It also included the toughest sanction policy in
the nation, denying food stamp benefits and the entire AFDC benefit to all members
of recipient families that had an adult who failed to meet the program's work
requirements.15 Some waiver provisions were implemented
statewide, while others were implemented in specified counties. The demonstration
focused on changing the behavior of welfare recipients by enforcing parental
responsibility and encouraging participation in the labor force rather than
through education and training programs. The demonstration was divided into
three separate components: the Statewide/Learnfare Demonstration, the Work Encouragement
Demonstration, and the WorkFirst Demonstration. Each of the components and its
provisions is described below.
Statewide/Learnfare Demonstration Component.
The Statewide/Learnfare Demonstration focused on enforcing parental responsibility
among AFDC recipients and discouraging out-of-wedlock births. All of the provisions
were implemented statewide. Provisions included
- Learnfare: Children ages 6 through 17 in families
receiving AFDC were required to attend school at least 90 percent of the time.
A $25 sanction was imposed if the attendance requirement was not met.
- Immunization requirement:
Children under age 6 in families receiving AFDC were required to obtain immunizations
and receive checkups on a regular basis. A $25 sanction was imposed if the
immunization requirement was not met.
- Family cap: A cap was placed on family benefit
levels, which eliminated the increase in benefits to children born into an
AFDC family after 10 months of participation. The capped child was still eligible
for food stamps and was included in the calculation of eligibility for AFDC.
- Teen parent live-at-home requirement: Minor parents
who were not married were required to live with their parents in order to
receive AFDC.
- Social contract: All
AFDC recipients were required to sign a social contract to acknowledge the
recipients' responsibilities to the state.16
Work Encouragement Demonstration Component.
Provisions in both the Work Encouragement and WorkFirst Demonstrations focused
on increasing employment. The Work Encouragement Demonstration experimented
with increasing the earned income disregards to provide a greater financial
incentive to work. This component was implemented in two counties (Leflore and
Okitebbha). Provisions included
- Earned income disregard:
For recipients receiving earned income, the time limit on the $30 and 1/3
earned income disregard was eliminated.17
- Benefit computation:
The state changed the benefit calculation, allowing families with income to
receive higher benefits. (The maximum benefit level was still in effect, so
this provision raised the benefit levels only for those families with income
who were receiving less than the maximum benefit level.)
- Absent parent work requirement: Nonexempt custodial
parents were required to participate in JOBS. Under this provision, the state
also required noncustodial, nonworking parents of AFDC children to participate
in JOBS to meet child support obligations.
WorkFirst Demonstration Component. Like the
Work Encouragement Demonstration, the WorkFirst Demonstration sought to increase
employment, but it did so through strict work participation requirements, the
toughest sanctions in the country, subsidized job placements, and less restrictive
transitional services. This component was implemented in six counties (Adams,
Harrison, Jones, Lee, Hinds, and Washington). It was widely regarded as the
centerpiece of the waiver demonstration and later served as the model for the
Mississippi TANF program. Provisions included
- Subsidized employment: All nonexempt AFDC and
Food Stamp program participants who failed to find unsubsidized jobs were
required to work in subsidized private-sector jobs as they became available.
In general, an individual's AFDC and food stamp grants covered all but $1.00
per hour of minimum wage work. Participating employers paid this difference
directly to the AFDC recipient employee. Job training placements were limited
to six months, with some exceptions. Supplemental payments to the AFDC or
food stamp family could be made if the WorkFirst participant earned less than
the family would have received in AFDC and food stamp benefits.
- Individual development accounts: WorkFirst participants
in subsidized employment for 30 days could start an individual development
account (IDA) funded by the employer and not to exceed $1,000. Only recipients
leaving AFDC because of earnings could withdraw funds from their IDA.
- Sanctions: The penalty
for not complying with work requirements was increased, resulting in the loss
of all AFDC and food stamp benefits for the entire family.
- Child support pass-through:
The entire amount of child support collected on behalf of a family was passed
through to that family.
- Absent parent work requirement: Nonexempt custodial
parents were required to participate in JOBS. Under this provision, the state
also required noncustodial, nonworking parents of AFDC children to participate
in JOBS in order to meet child support obligations.
- Removal of UP-family rules:
The 30-day waiting period, 100-hour rule, and 6 out of 13 quarters work history
rule were removed for recipients.18
- Transitional services:
The requirement that an AFDC family receive benefits for three months in order
to qualify for transitional child care and transitional Medicaid was eliminated.
- Voluntary JOBS participant sanctions: Recipients
who volunteered for JOBS were subject to the same sanctions as mandatory participants.
Concurrent with the implementation of the WorkFirst provisions
of the New Direction Demonstration Program, the state also reorganized service
delivery in WorkFirst counties. This reorganization created a "one-stop shop"
of integrated welfare and job placement services to support the emphasis placed
on immediate job search. Before this change, AFDC eligibility determination,
JOBS services (usually contracted to PDDs or CAAs), and the Mississippi Employment
and Security Commission (MESC) were located in separate facilities. New applicants
first met with an eligibility caseworker at a DHS county field office for initial
eligibility screening. Nonexempt recipients would later meet with a JOBS caseworker
at a separate facility, who would send the recipient to the local MESC office
to look for employment, if appropriate. After the reorganization, AFDC eligibility
caseworkers, JOBS caseworkers (now WorkFirst caseworkers), and job placement
specialists from MESC shared the same facility. New applicants met with an eligibility
caseworker and a job placement specialist on the same day. The job placement
specialist would help applicants look for unsubsidized employment using MESC's
database. If employment was not found and the applicants qualified for AFDC,
they would return to the same location for a meeting with the eligibility caseworker
and an MESC job placement specialist to continue the job search. The WorkFirst
caseworker also arranged job support services such as child care and transportation.
The results of this labor force attachment approach in Mississippi
were first reported by the Implementation Process Study of WorkFirst conducted
by Millsaps College. The evaluation revealed that 2,998 recipients, or approximately
41 percent of WorkFirst participants, were placed in unsubsidized jobs during
the first six quarters of the demonstration program. During the same period,
639 recipients (9 percent) were placed in subsidized employment positions. In
addition, the findings indicated that slightly more than one-third of the participants
placed in unsubsidized and subsidized jobs retained their employment after the
first six quarters of WorkFirst.19
The WorkFirst program has received considerable support
from the governor, top DHS officials, and a number of legislators. One DHS official
described the program as "wildly successful," citing higher caseload declines
in WorkFirst counties compared with the rest of the state.20
Indeed, independent evaluators of the New Direction Demonstration Program found
that while caseloads declined in non-WorkFirst counties by 22.3 percent, the
six WorkFirst counties had caseload declines of 34.3 percent.
The Implementation Process Study also reported that WorkFirst
was implemented on schedule and with broad support from county field staff;
however, a few problems were noted. County line workers considered the training
regime inadequate and noted the lack of a consolidated policy manual. The study
also reported a high number of sanctions resulting in benefit termination in
the six WorkFirst counties. After the first six quarters of WorkFirst, 1,377
recipients had received at least one sanction: approximately 19 percent of the
total number of WorkFirst clients, almost half the number of those placed in
unsubsidized jobs, and more than twice the number placed in subsidized jobs.21
Criticism of the WorkFirst demonstration came largely from the academic and
advocate communities, who argued that few resources had been directed toward
training and support services, that sanctions were applied harshly and inconsistently,
and that an insufficient number of jobs were available for welfare recipients.22
As the centerpiece of the waiver demonstration, WorkFirst
served as the model for Mississippi's response to the federal welfare reform
legislation (PRWORA) passed in August 1996. After review of the preliminary
impacts of WorkFirst by the administration and the legislature, the New Direction
Demonstration Program waiver was repealed and replaced with a TANF program based
on the WorkFirst component. Although slightly modified in later legislation,
the WorkFirst model expanded from the initial pilot counties to statewide implementation
in 1997. The penultimate section of this paper will return to this subject and
further describe the implications of federal welfare reform and the initial
responses in Mississippi.
Programs
that Promote Financial Independence
Employment and training services, child care subsidies,
child support enforcement, and Medicaid are supports that the state provides
to increase the financial resources available to families and decrease dependence
on public aid. Subsidized child care and Medicaid are means-tested programs
and, therefore, are provided exclusively to families at the lower end of the
income scale. Assistance with child care and health care costs is important
to families receiving public assistance and also serves as a critical bridge
to increased financial responsibility during the transition from welfare to
work.
Employment and training services and child support enforcement
measures are available to all families regardless of income. These supports,
however, have increased significance for low-income and very low income families
as avenues for economic opportunity that otherwise may not
be feasible or practical to pursue. In building these opportunities, the state
makes an investment in the ability of families to become financially independent
at a later time.
In Mississippi, these supports carry particular importance.
The state has a high population of low-income families and a low maximum benefit
level for cash assistance. For both welfare and working poor families, these
additional sources of support can significantly increase a family's monthly
income.
Employment and Training Services
With welfare reform, first at the state and then at the
federal level, Mississippi has increasingly moved away from education or training
assistance for welfare recipients and toward the goal of quick labor force attachment
as demonstrated through the adoption of the WorkFirst approach. In contrast,
education and training programs are more widely available to the low-income
population, whether on welfare or not, through JTPA funding and through One-Stop
Career Centers.
These differing approaches stem from different goals. Employment
services for the welfare population (through JOBS/WorkFirst) are led predominantly
by the goal of increasing personal responsibility through work and decreasing
dependency on public aid. The JTPA programs and One-Stop Career Centers, although
administered separately, share the primary goal of economic development through
the strengthening of the state's workforce. For example, all training programs
funded through JTPA or the Career Centers must be geared toward skill development
for an in-demand occupation as determined by the State Workforce Development
Advisory Council or the District Councils.23
Administrative and Service Delivery Structures
Three pillars of administration govern employment and training
services in the state of Mississippi. At one end is the DHS, which administers
JOBS/WorkFirst funding exclusively for the welfare population; at the other
is the State Workforce Development Advisory Board and the District Boards that
oversee the 15 One-Stop Career (Skill/Tech) Centers, which cater largely to
the blue-collar population. In between these two pillars, DECD administers JTPA
funds that serve both the welfare and low-income populations.24
At the policy level, the State Job Training Coordinating
Council (SJTCC) in the governor's Office of Job Development and Training reviews
all the employment and training plans for both JTPA and JOBS to coordinate plans
at the state and local level. SJTCC also confers with the State Workforce Development
Advisory Council to align JTPA policies with the priorities established by the
Advisory Council for the One-Stop Career Centers.
At the service delivery level there appears to be little
coordination among the three funding streams. The blending of funding streams
and coordination that does exist occurs through district or area administrators
and community-based providers who use multiple funding sources to provide comprehensive
services to clients.
JOBS and JTPA
There are distinct lines between the administrative systems
for JOBS and JTPA funding, yet management of the funds can overlap at the district
level. For JTPA there are five Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) in the state with
Private Industry Councils (PICs) that advise on policy for their area. Actual
administration of JTPA funding within an SDA may lie with the PIC (as is the
case in three areas) or with the Planning and Development District (in two areas).
PDDs may deliver some services in-house (mostly case management), but they usually
contract with community-based providers for general equivalency diploma (GED)
preparation, employability skills training, and job placement services. (PICs
contract out all services.) JOBS funding is contracted either to PDDs or to
CAAs, which in turn either provide a mix of in-house and contracted services
or fully contract services with community-based providers.
JOBS/WorkFirst funding cannot directly cover the costs of
skills training for welfare recipients beyond GED programs; however, welfare
clients can benefit from skills training services in areas in which the same
management body administers JTPA and JOBS funding. For example, the Central
Mississippi Planning and Development District (CMSPDD) manages both JTPA and
JOBS funding streams and has found that it is better equipped to provide the
full range of case management services to welfare recipients. For those clients
who are having difficulty locating work, the CMSPDD is able to use JTPA funding
for skills training to increase their opportunities.
One-Stop Career Centers
The One-Stop Career Centers, created through the Workforce
Education Act of 1994, are largely independent from JTPA and JOBS/WorkFirst
activities. Unlike JOBS and JTPA, which rely heavily (or exclusively in the
case of JTPA) on federal funding, the One-Stop Career Centers are funded through
a combination of state and corporate funding. The state enacted its one-stop
approach to employment and training just before Congress passed similar legislation
making funding available to states for these activities. Even so, with the exception
of a one-time planning grant of $200,000 from the U.S. Department of Labor in
1996, Mississippi has not pursued or received any federal funding support for
its centers.
The Workforce Education Act created a State Workforce Development
Advisory Council, a body of 27 appointed individuals from the public, education,
and private sectors, that sets state workforce development policy and, in turn,
the agendas for the Career Centers. Fifteen District Workforce Development Councils,
with 15 appointed members on each, oversee the Career Center activities in their
areas. The State Board for Community and Junior Colleges (SBCJC) provides staff
and administrative support to both the State Workforce Development Advisory
Council and the District Councils.
All of the Career Centers are staffed and organized locally
by a community college affiliate of the SBCJC and cater to area business needs
for workforce development. Services provided by the Career (Skill/Tech) Centers
include recruitment, skills assessment, counseling, and referral services for
training or job placements; preemployment training for those with no experience
in the private enterprise system; basic literacy skills training and high school
equivalency education; vocational and technical training (full or part time);
and short-term skills training for JTPA participants.25
In some areas there are multiple Career Centers, many directly on-site at major
employers or at community colleges. In rural areas with limited access to on-site
Career Centers, the local community college may operate a mobile unit to provide
training, resources, and instruction.
The number of individuals served through the One-Stop Career
Centers nearly tripled between 1994 and 1997, from 39,454 clients to 114,327.26
Job enhancement is the largest program category, serving 35 percent of the clientele,
followed by job-specific training for the technical industry (33 percent) and
adult basic education/GED (28 percent). During FY 1996, Career Centers placed
5,518 persons in jobs through their Employee Certification and Preemployment
training programs. Many service costs are covered by employers, but individuals
seeking services are requested to pay a $5 fee. The success of the Career Centers
is attributed to the cooperative partnerships between community/junior colleges
and private employers. The One-Stop Career Centers have been well received by
the business community in Mississippi; in fact, corporate contributions to the
centers now outweigh state support by a ratio of 10 to 1.27
Despite the success and accessibility of the Career Centers,
providers of other employment and training services are concerned that disadvantaged
populations do not make use of One-Stop Career Center resources. Although Career
Center services are available to all, 75 percent of training services are provided
to blue-collar workers. Respondents indicated that welfare recipients are not
directed to the Career Centers for services but do at times find them or seek
them out on their own. JOBS/WorkFirst case managers tend to believe that the
community colleges are not interested in serving this population and therefore
direct their clients to the job service centers managed by the MESC. These job
service centers offer labor market information and searches of available job
opportunities and employers in the area, but they do not provide the more comprehensive
services of the One-Stop Career Centers.
The Workforce Education Act of 1994 unanimously passed the
state legislature and was supported by the governor, perhaps in part because
the act was unrelated to welfare reform. In the initial discussions of workforce
education legislation, there was talk of coordinating such legislation with
welfare reform to bring employment and training services together in a coordinated
fashion for all populations. The DHS would not agree to such an approach, setting
separate courses for the two agendas and maintaining the disconnected but targeted
system for employment services for welfare recipients.
Child Care
The subsidized child care system in Mississippi relies heavily
on federal funding and has been structured according to the various federal
funding sources available. This structure has resulted in a complex system with
various avenues for entry and no assurance of continued assistance as a family's
eligibility changes, particularly from welfare recipient to working poor. The
limited state resources devoted to child care further restrict the state's ability
to provide assistance as an important supplement to work or as an avenue for
the low-income population to access child development programs.
Administration and Service Delivery
The subsidized child care system in Mississippi is organized
around the available federal funding streams, with distinct administrative systems
and differing goals. Transitional Child Care (TCC) and child care for working
AFDC recipients and JOBS/WorkFirst participants flow through the Division of
Economic Assistance of DHS, with a clear emphasis on child care as a support
to work. The Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the Social Services
Block Grant (SSBG), and At-Risk funding flow through the DHS Office for Children
and Youth (OCY). The majority of CCDBG funds distributed through the Child Care
Certificate Program are earmarked for the care of children in very low income
families (below 50 percent of the state median income), children in protective
services, and children with developmental delays (see table
4). Partial CCDBG and SSBG funding is used primarily to maintain the state's
early commitment to "limited resource providers," who have historically helped
ensure a supply of child care slots devoted to low-income children.
For the majority of funding, there can be three levels of
administration before vouchers reach families. This applies to AFDC/JOBS (WorkFirst),
TCC, and 75 percent of CCDBG funds (the Child Care Certificate Program). For
each of these streams, the appropriate office in DHS sets overarching policy
but contracts with a child care management agency for administration of the
funding by regional area. Initially, this function was exclusively performed
by the PDDs; however, there is now a mix of PDDs and CAAs fulfilling this role
throughout the state. The first complication in this system is that AFDC/JOBS
and TCC funding are contracted out separately from CCDBG funding. As a result,
there can be two child care management agencies within one region (or county)
if the PDD is awarded one of the contracts and the CAA the other.
The child care management agency decides whether to handle
cases directly or to further contract out this function. The underlying philosophy
is that the agency or organization with offices closest to the service population
should fulfill this role. In some cases, the PDD or CAA offices fit the bill;
in others, local agencies are brought in to make this connection. For example,
within the Central Mississippi Planning and Development District, offices in
two counties provide voucher management in-house, while in four other counties
these services are contracted to local CAAs or to community-based organizations.
Across this system encompassing AFDC/JOBS, TCC, and the
Child Care Certificate Program, subsidy levels, family copayments, and provider
reimbursement rates are universal (see table 4).28
However, it is not a seamless system for either administrators or families as
their child care eligibility status changes. While the vouchers themselves and
the applications for subsidies are similar, different applications must be submitted
depending on the funding stream accessed (that is, families' eligibility). AFDC/JOBS,
TCC, and CCDBG have their own applications and may be accessed at different
locations within an area.
TCC is available for families for up to one year after they
leave welfare because of increased earnings. After this time, families that
need continued assistance with child care costs must submit a new application
for subsidies under the Child Care Certificate Program for CCDBG funding. According
to the Division of Economic Assistance, preference is given to TCC families
for receipt of these certificates; however, this does not come across clearly
at the implementation level. Discussions with multiple respondents indicated
a belief that all families that do not receive welfare have equal opportunity—or
difficulty—in obtaining child care assistance. Every provider, advocate, and
child care management agency respondent agreed that there are waiting lists
at both the provider and management agency level, but we could not obtain specifics
about the length of these lists. System fragmentation, first by funding stream
and then by management at the regional level, and the lack of a centralized
data system place severe limitations on access to data about the number and
characteristics of families waiting for child care across the state.
Set-Aside Funds
Much of the remaining CCDBG funds (25 percent) and $1 million
of SSBG funds are available directly to providers through contracts. These funds
continue the state's commitment to the limited resource providers to assist
with either actual child care slots or with center equipment and resource needs.
The state developed this network of providers to cater exclusively to the low-income
population. With the introduction of a voucher-based system under CCDBG and
recent changes in priority groups, these providers find it increasingly difficult
to keep their doors open for their predominantly working-poor clientele. These
funds serve as an important, though dwindling, avenue for alleviating some of
the financial pressures these providers experience. These contracts, however,
provide financial assurances only in the short term, because contracts still
have to be won each year, and competition is now very high for such funding.
In addition, the amount of SSBG funding devoted to these contracts has decreased
over recent years.
Funding
Funding for child care in Mississippi does not extend much
beyond that provided through federal funding streams. The state did contribute
matching funds—as required—for AFDC/JOBS and TCC funding (Title IV-A child care).
However, the state did not provide matching funds to access At-Risk funding.
The OCY, however, has served as a conduit for localities wishing to provide
their own matching monies to draw down federal At-Risk funds. The city of Jackson,
for example, runs five child care centers initiated through and dependent on
such funding. Overall, the state contributed approximately 7 percent of child
care expenditures in 1995 for the subsidized program described here.29
According to one respondent, DHS reported that it served
about 5 percent of the children in families eligible for child care assistance
in 1996. Estimates by the Mississippi Forum for Children and Families suggest
that if the child care system functioned at its most efficient level, it could
still meet the needs of only 10 percent of the total eligible population (families
under 75 percent of the state median income).
Given the low level of funding for child care in the state,
advocates and legislators came together to encourage businesses to provide child
care for their employees. In 1995, legislation was passed that authorized a
25 percent tax credit for employers who provide dependent care during working
hours. This was expanded to a 50 percent tax credit during the 1997 legislative
session. The credit applies to start-up costs for building or preparing space,
and all ongoing expenditures. Businesses can use the credit to establish on-site
child care or to build alliances with networks of providers through which the
employer will provide subsidized care for the children of employees. There is
a sense that this is the last major option available in the state to help address
the need for child care. Head Start provides child development programs for
children ages three to five during the day, but there is no state-funded prekindergarten
program that can help meet the early learning needs of low-income children.
Child Support
The Division of Child Support Enforcement was established
in Mississippi in 1990 and manages 84 local offices under the purview of DHS.
Two of the local offices provide child support enforcement through a contracted
private organization; the rest are maintained by the Division of Child Support
Enforcement.
Child support enforcement in Mississippi is primarily a
judicial system with few administrative procedures. The efficiency of child
support collections in Mississippi is low compared with many states. In 1996,
for instance, Mississippi collected $2.87 of child support per dollar of administrative
expenditures, $1.06 less than the average amount collected nationally and lower
than all but 14 states.30 In most regards, the
child support program meets but does not exceed federal requirements. For instance,
the state had not adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act for enforcement
of interstate orders until required to do so by PRWORA.
In the past few years, however, child support enforcement
in Mississippi has made progress as the result of a number of innovations. In
1995, the state initiated an automated system that has improved the state's
ability to locate absent parents and collect child support. The automated system
connects the child support enforcement division to welfare eligibility determinations,
MESC, the Mississippi state personnel board, the state parent locator unit,
and the federal parent locator unit. Other recent innovations in child support
enforcement in Mississippi include the state's paternity program, A Simple Acknowledgment
of Paternity (ASAP), and the License Suspension program. The ASAP program, which
went into effect in 1994, is an in-hospital acknowledgment of paternity required
by the federal government as a result of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act. The License Suspension program, which went into effect July 1, 1996, allows
the state to suspend occupational licenses, business licenses, drivers licenses,
and hunting/fishing licenses. Unlike the ASAP program, the License Suspension
program predated federal law requiring that states authorize such programs.
These innovations appear to have paid off. Total collections
in FY 1996 reached $84.6 million, up from $62.0 million in FY 1995 (see table
5). Paternities and obligations established have also increased substantially,
often outpacing the division's goals. The FY 1996 goal for paternity establishments,
for instance, was 5 percent higher than the 10,844 paternities established in
FY 1995. By the end of FY 1996, however, the state had established 14,246 paternities,
a 31 percent increase over the previous year (see table 5).31
Medicaid and Other Health Insurance32
Medicaid currently is the only health insurance program
for low-income families in Mississippi. The maximum income eligibility for receipt
of Medicaid in Mississippi is 34 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)—lower
than the national average of 39 percent of the FPL, but higher than a number
of its neighboring southern states. Even with its narrow eligibility, Mississippi
has a relatively high Medicaid participation rate; 16 percent of all state residents
rely on Medicaid for health care coverage.
In recent years, Medicaid expenditures in Mississippi have
grown at a slightly faster pace than they have nationally; however, this is
predominantly the result of increased federal and provider funding through disproportionate
share hospital spending rather than General Fund outlays. Even with these increases,
the spending per Medicaid enrollee of $2,377 in 1995 was approximately 26 percent
less than the national average. Mississippi has extended its coverage for pregnant
women and infants up to 185 percent of the FPL, which is more generous than
the federal requirement of 133 percent of the FPL. In addition, the state intends
to expand Medicaid coverage from 12 to 24 months for families transitioning
from welfare, although the federal waiver needed to implement such action has
not yet been submitted to the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
In 1992, Mississippi began a limited form of managed care
in its Medicaid program through HealthMACS, a primary care management program.
This program, operating in 20 counties in April 1997, is a gatekeeper model
of managed care but does not introduce a capitated payment system.33
Primary care providers (the gatekeepers) receive $3 per month per person to
manage the care of Medicaid recipients. All health care services are billed
to Medicaid on a fee-for-service basis. HealthMACS was mandatory for AFDC recipients
in the counties in which it was implemented. In 1997, legislation was passed
calling for statewide implementation of HealthMACS.
Community health centers are important to the delivery of
health care to the low-income and uninsured populations in Mississippi. These
centers provide a health care safety net in this rural state, which has a substantial
shortage of health professionals. The proportion of state residents seen at
community health centers is three times higher than the national average—8.6
percent compared with 2.7 percent, respectively. These centers also provide
prenatal care to nearly half of all pregnant women in the state. There is some
concern that the HealthMACS program is discouraging Medicaid clients from seeking
care at the centers. This could threaten the centers' long-term financial ability
to provide services to the uninsured.
Mississippi does have two possibly connected opportunities
to expand health care coverage to the uninsured, especially children. The state
is eligible for $58 million in federal funding through the State Children's
Health Insurance Program; however, a state match of $10.7 million is needed
to access these funds. These matching funds could come from the tobacco settlement
reached between the state and the tobacco companies over public costs for smoking-related
medical care. This precedent-setting settlement will provide the state with
$170 million in its first year and will eventually total $3.6 billion. However,
the Mississippi legislature has been reluctant to appropriate the settlement
funds because of concerns that a national settlement may alter the amount of
money received by the state.
Last-Resort
Safety Net Programs
Some families require assistance to address serious and
immediate needs that move beyond financial supports. Child welfare services
and emergency assistance are part of the state safety net that serves families
who face internal strife or who are unable to meet such basic needs as food
and shelter.
In recent years, DHS in Mississippi has been proactive in
its reform of child welfare services, emphasizing family preservation and reunification.
This emphasis has begun to foster an increased partnership between DHS and community
providers, which will prove important in addressing the challenges of a system
in transition.
Local-level providers constitute the core delivery system
for emergency assistance throughout the state. While the state primarily passes
through federal funding for emergency services to local-level providers, it
has had influence in moving providers toward a case management approach to service
delivery.
Child Welfare Services
Service Structure
Child welfare services are administered at the state level
by the Division of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) within DHS. DFCS sets
overarching policy for child welfare, including prevention services, investigation
of child abuse or neglect, and the provision of substitute care and adoption
services. Service contracts are administered and funding resources and expenditures
are determined by DFCS.
DFCS operations are organized into seven regions within
the state for more direct administration. Eighty-four area offices operating
within these regions (typically one for every county) serve as the point of
contact for families and children. Most social workers in the area offices are
classified as generic workers and handle cases from the onset of the investigation
through closure. In some of the larger metropolitan areas, such as in Hinds
County, offices have specialized intake, investigation, and supervision units.
Until 1995, all state-administered child welfare services
were provided directly through the area offices. In 1995, the state began contracting
with community-based organizations to provide family preservation programs with
federal funding through the Family Preservation and Support Act.
Caseload Dynamics
Compared with other states, Mississippi has had a consistently
smaller number of reports of child abuse and neglect based on reports that are
referred for investigation. Mississippi's policy is to investigate all reports
received at the area offices, but it remains unclear how cases from a statewide
24-hour hotline intake service are screened and referred to the area offices
for action.34 Within the state, reports requiring
investigation increased from 9,908 in 1986 to 17,322 in 1994, while the number
of children who were the subjects of a report increased from approximately 16,000
to more than 31,000.35 In 1996, a total of 17,648
reports were investigated. The percentage of reports that are substantiated
in Mississippi declined from 47 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 1994, according
to data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported
by the states.36 Statistics from DHS for 1996
indicate a substantiation rate of approximately 25 percent (4,486 substantiated
cases out of a total of 17,648 investigated reports).37
The actual number of children in substitute care increased
early in this decade but has since reversed. In 1994, for the first time in
the 1990s, the number of children entering foster care was lower than the number
exiting.38 This held true in 1995 as well (the
latest year for which data are available). Overall, the rate of placement of
children in out-of-home care per 1,000 children in the state was 3.8 in both
1990 and 1995. This was the ninth-lowest rate of children placed in out-of-home
care in the nation in 1995.39
The length of time children remain in substitute care is
a concern shared by Mississippi's administrators, advocates, and legislators
alike. In 1995, 40 percent of the children in substitute care had been in such
care for more than three years; 36 percent had been in substitute care for one
to three years; and the remaining 23 percent had been in care for less than
one year.40
Agency Agenda and Scope of Services
DFCS has changed its policies recently to emphasize family
preservation and reunification rather than child protection. DFCS's self-assessment
in 1995 makes two things very clear: The division emphasized protection, and
operations were not running well or to the benefit of children. It appears that
the change in focus from protection to family preservation stemmed from DFCS's
dissatisfaction with its delivery of services, particularly the lack of resources
for prevention or family preservation supports.
The division's new mission appears to have increased the
availability and scope of family services to some degree throughout the state.
For example, only one family preservation program existed in 1994. Since that
time the state has used the catalyst of federal funding for family preservation
and family support to launch partnerships with community-based organizations
to increase family preservation services. In FY 1996, statewide RFPs began to
build networks of services available in local communities to families in the
child protective services system.
Changes take time, however, and DFCS still has a long way
to go in service development, particularly in supportive family services. Estimated
expenditures for FY 1996 indicate that 65 percent of the total budget was directed
toward children in out-of-home placement (see table 6).
Prevention services made up almost 9 percent of estimated expenditures, intervention
services made up 16 percent, and family preservation and family support activities
accounted for 10 percent of the total estimated expenditures. Respondents stated
that the department still needs a significant reorganization of services for
family preservation and reunification efforts to take root throughout the child
welfare system and have a long-term effect.
Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System
In 1997, legislation regarding the termination of parental
rights was passed with the support of legislators and advocates alike. This
legislation was intended to force DFCS to review child status reports more frequently
to prevent children from languishing for extended periods of time in substitute
care. The law requires DFCS to return the child home or begin litigation to
terminate parental rights within six months of removing children under the age
of three and within nine months for older children. Everyone agrees that this
legislation fits DFCS's goal of family reunification, and legislators and advocates
see the legislation as moving permanency planning efforts ahead (although these
latter groups see it more as an adoption bill). Time limits established in the
legislation, however, were a source of contention and frustration. DFCS is under
the strain of a system in transition and now has the added pressure of making
decisions for children in a short time frame. Advocates fear that the limits
may force DFCS to send children back to their homes without the supportive services
needed to keep them safe. While the legislation has now set the policy, nearly
all respondents agreed that it will not be fully implemented because of the
lack of both human and financial resources in DFCS.
In general, respondents felt that child welfare policies
at both the federal level and the state level in Mississippi were good, but
that the breakdown occurs first in implementation within the DFCS offices and
then is exacerbated by variations at the local level. The variation occurs both
in DFCS area offices and within the local Youth Courts. The Youth Court authorizes
removal, custody, and other protective orders. Each Youth Court has wide latitude
for interpreting federal and state policies, such as the federal mandate to
provide "reasonable efforts" to maintain a child in his or her home.
Overall, the system of child welfare services in Mississippi
appears to be under financial and political strain, and in a period of transition
for policy and practice. The direction for change, however, has largely been
determined as a result of the state's request for technical assistance from
the federal Administration for Children and Families and from the state's completion
of its Five-Year Child and Family Services Plan with the assistance of the Social
Science Research Center of Mississippi State University. The Mississippi Commission
on a Uniform Youth Court System is in the midst of a four-year project to assess,
plan, and improve the way the Youth Courts handle foster care and adoption cases.
In addition, the Kellogg Foundation has an initiative in the state to improve
the availability of adoptive homes. These efforts may further refine future
actions and options available to DFCS.
Emergency Services and Housing
Mississippi does not have an integrated emergency assistance
program at the state level. Emergency assistance support and programs for the
homeless have been pieced together through the patchwork of available federal
funding. Two state departments serve predominantly as pass-throughs for federal
funding to provide services at the local level, and programs essentially mirror
the federal funding streams. Mississippi does not access Title IV-A Emergency
Assistance (EA) federal funding and does not contribute any state funding toward
the services described here.
Diversion Services
Funding for services to prevent homelessness, known as diversion
services, is administered by the Division of Community Services (DCS) of the
Department of Human Services (see table 7). The two most
significant funding streams for diversion assistance are the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG).
The most significant state policy influence in the area
of emergency assistance is exerted through these two programs. In 1995, DCS
encouraged local-level service providers to adopt a case management approach
to assistance. This represented a shift from simply meeting immediate needs
to helping clients move toward self-sufficiency. DCS helps local entities employ
this case management approach by allocating LIHEAP and CSBG funding to the same
administering agency—CAA. Providers are then able to use LIHEAP for direct assistance,
combined with the flexibility of CSBG funds for additional case management.
Eligibility for both programs is determined by income (125
percent of the FPL or less), with the caveat that the individual or family express
a willingness to work toward self-sufficiency through a participant agreement.
Any continued assistance is based on how well a case progresses as measured
by a case management rating result. There are no limits to the amount of CSBG
assistance a family or individual can receive; however, there are caps on LIHEAP
assistance that are determined by assessing an individual's or family's barriers
to progress or their intensity of need. For example, in Jackson, the CAA can
provide up to $180 in assistance for low-intensity need, $340 for medium-intensity
need, and up to $540 to those with high-intensity need.
Providers and CAAs resented the change to case management
at first but soon began to see the positive effects. While case management can
force providers to devote their limited resources to fewer cases, they have
found fewer clients returning for additional assistance. In addition, they saw
the move toward case management as a catalyst for increased coordination and
collaboration of services among providers.
Homeless Assistance Programs
The Community Services Division of the Department of Economic
and Community Development also administers the programs targeted to homeless
populations. Before 1996, these programs had been housed in the Division of
Community Services in DHS; they moved to DECD with the development of consolidated
plans to access various federal funding streams from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). DECD coordinates the Consolidated Plan
for the state, encompassing approximately 300 communities. Some locations in
the state, including Jackson, are considered entitlement communities by HUD
and receive these federal funds directly.
From the Consolidated Plan, there are two funding sources
for homeless services. The first, the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), is allocated
by DECD directly to local shelter providers. In addition, part of the CDBG is
directed toward an Emergency Homeless Program (EHP). These funds also flow from
DECD to local providers to provide both diversion and supportive services to
those who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. Families with children
are among the top priority groups to receive assistance through the EHP.
Nonprofit providers serve as the backbone of the delivery
structure for all emergency assistance and homeless services in the state. There
is a great deal of discretion in service provision at the local level. For example,
there are no entities that oversee or license emergency shelters at either the
state or local level. However, there are formal and informal networks that serve
as coordinating bodies among providers in local areas. The United Way has initiated
Community Services Networks in both Vicksburg and Jackson that help unite nonprofits
to improve services to clients and increase efficiency in service delivery.
This network appears particularly strong in Vicksburg and has prompted resource
allocations that allow specialization of services for agencies to avoid repeated
assistance to families for the same needs. This is most evident in the allocation
of local Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds for emergency assistance.
These funds are divided up in Vicksburg by function, and rental assistance funding
is directed to one agency while utility assistance funding is directed to another.
Providers have found that this increases their ability to track who is getting
what assistance and how often.
The availability of emergency services varies by community.
Often, the faith community plays a fairly significant role in service provision.
In Vicksburg, churches provide important support, particularly in the areas
of food distribution and transitional housing. The primary emergency services
and shelter provider in the city of Jackson is an organization consisting of
a large network of involved congregations. Overall, respondents stated that
food and shelter services seemed adequate to address needs at the time of our
visit, but they were becoming concerned by increasing demands.
Challenges: Transportation and Housing
Transportation is viewed as a significant obstacle for families
attempting to move toward self-sufficiency. The lack of public transportation
for clients to access emergency services and to maintain appointments for any
follow-up or continued supportive services was a commonly voiced concern among
local-level providers.
Another obstacle to self-sufficiency is the lack of affordable
housing. Rents in both Jackson and Vicksburg begin at nearly $600 per month
for a two-bedroom apartment, well beyond the reach of many low-income families.
In Vicksburg, rents have virtually doubled throughout the market with the entrance
of the casino industry over the last few years.
The opportunities for public housing and Section 8 certificates
are also limited in these areas. In Jackson, approximately 600 families are
on the waiting list for public housing, with a wait time of between six months
and one year. The Jackson Public Housing Authority does not set priorities for
who receives housing but bases access on the date of application. Jackson has
a somewhat shorter waiting list for Section 8 housing, so there is better access
to subsidized housing. Waiting lists in Vicksburg are significantly longer.
About 500 families are on the list for two-bedroom apartments in public housing,
with a wait time of between two and three years; 900 families are waiting for
a three-bedroom apartment, with a much longer wait time. In Vicksburg, the Housing
Authority does take circumstances and income into consideration when determining
priorities for families on the waiting list. Neither housing authority gives
preference to homeless families.
Service Delivery
Challenges and Innovations
Mississippi faces some particular challenges in the early
prevention of dependence and in the delivery of social services. One factor
affecting dependency rates in Mississippi is that the state has the highest
rate of teen pregnancy in the nation. Having a child as a teen increases the
likelihood that the mother will at some point depend on public assistance and
can limit her educational and employment opportunities.41
A further challenge for the delivery of social services in the state is the
lack of public transportation. This section will address these challenges, the
role of DHS in coordinating services, and the role of both nonprofit and for-profit
providers in the delivery of social services in Mississippi.
Teen Pregnancy Prevention
The DHS's website says, "We're number one in Mississippi,
but it's nothing to brag about."42 They are referring
to the rate of teen pregnancy in the state. At 76 births per 1,000 teens in
1996, Mississippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancy among the states, 41
percent higher than the national rate of 54 births per 1,000 teens.43
Other statistics are just as alarming—22 percent of all births in the state
are to teen mothers, and statewide, between 30 and 35 percent of teens who have
one baby will have another pregnancy while still a teen.
DOH has limited resources to address teen pregnancy prevention.
Statewide, approximately $8 million is disbursed to 81 local health offices
for family planning activities, just under $100,000 per office. The vast majority
of this funding is through the federal Family Planning Program (Title X) and
the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant;44 less
than 5 percent of family planning services are covered by state dollars. At
the local level, these dollars must be stretched to address family planning
for all women who seek it, although approximately 30 percent of the clients
at local DOH offices are under 20 years of age. To supplement the efforts of
local offices, DOH also contracts with nonprofit organizations that administer
330 community health centers.
Local-level practitioners and state-level administrators
recognize that relying solely on local health offices and community health centers
to reach teens has its limitations. Access to either is very difficult because
of the lack of public transportation. Arranging for transportation to a center
or local health office decreases the confidentiality of the visit. In addition,
practitioners believe that teens attach a stigma to visiting the centers.
DOH has made repeated attempts over the years to place a
nurse in every school but has had continual difficulty obtaining the necessary
funding. In part, this is explained by public attitudes and political responses
that emphasize abstinence education over family planning services.
Even with a growing emphasis on abstinence education in
the state, DOH does not have the resources to provide state matching dollars
to draw down the federal dollars available through the Maternal and Child Health
Block Grant in conjunction with federal welfare reform legislation.45
Instead, the state issued an RFP to local nonprofit organizations interested
in implementing these programs and willing to provide matching funds at the
local level. The DOH will organize and collate the proposals up to the level
needed for the match and then redistribute the federal funds out to the local
providers. This funding approach allows local providers to access additional
funding, but respondents stated that it restricts the ability to coordinate
policy for teen pregnancy prevention at the state level.
At the time of our site visit, it appeared that there was
a limited state role in developing a coordinated policy approach to teen pregnancy
prevention efforts. However, this was changing with the work of the Mississippi
Task Force on Reducing Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancies, created in March 1997, and
other initiatives that were just getting under way in the spring of 1997.
Specific Challenge to Service Delivery:
Transportation
During our site visit, transportation was cited first and
most often as an obstacle to both service delivery and progress toward self-sufficiency.
The lack of transportation—particularly in rural areas, but even in the state's
small cities like Jackson—can impede initial assistance, follow-up, case management
progress, and, most important, movement into jobs. Social service providers
indicated that many clients missed appointments for services such as addiction
support programs, pregnancy prevention and family planning, family counseling,
and job training primarily because of their inability to reach services, especially
on an ongoing basis. When providers supplied transportation services, they witnessed
improved follow-up results.
Movement into jobs can be difficult when residents must
travel long distances between work and home. In the Delta region, in five counties
that are among the poorest in the nation, the unemployment rate reached 10 percent
in 1997.46 Residents of these regions usually
need to seek employment elsewhere, but because they do not usually own cars,
they must find alternative means of transportation. Similarly, in Vicksburg
and Jackson, there is a standard "neighbor" rate as high as $15 one way for
a ride from someone in the neighborhood from the outer regions into the more
heavily populated and business-rich areas. Costs of this magnitude can outweigh
the financial benefits of minimum-wage work. The governor's and DHS's proposed
solutions include suggesting that those needing to work—whether welfare recipients
or not—should move to locations that are more convenient to jobs. The dilemma
in such a solution is that there is little affordable housing in the central
areas of places like Jackson and Vicksburg, as discussed in the previous section.
In recognition of the significant barrier that transportation
presents in a rural state like Mississippi, transportation assistance is available
to TANF clients through contract providers, bus passes, or direct reimbursement.
This assistance can continue as transitional assistance for up to one year—three
months through the total income disregard and up to nine months of additional
assistance through direct reimbursement or contracted transportation providers.
Service Connections and Innovations
The government reorganization in 1989 that created DHS gave
the agency authority over welfare, child welfare, child care, and child support,
among other services. Yet, while housed under the same roof, these services
maintain distinct administrative systems and the connections among these systems
(at the service delivery level) appear to be weak and lacking in coordination.
The state structure for services is not well coordinated and relies heavily
on intermediary administrative agents such as the Planning and Development Districts
and Community Action Agencies to manage JOBS, child care, and emergency services.
At the local level, respondents stated that families in
need face a confusing network of services with no clear entry point. Another
difficulty stems from an inability to identify a primary case manager for families
that receive multiple services. Because DHS oversees social welfare programs,
many believe that it could feasibly be the common thread that weaves existing
services together.
Some movement has been made by DHS toward these ends. Specifically,
the colocation of services for cash assistance, JOBS, and child support under
WorkFirst set a precedent toward greater coordination of services, at least
for families receiving cash assistance (discussed in the section on income support
programs). In addition, in the minds of local-level providers, DHS's emphasis
on increased case management for families accessing emergency assistance has
resulted in more families being served more effectively over time.
The Role of Nonprofits and Interactions
with DHS
Nonprofit organizations provide an essential component of
the service delivery structure in Mississippi in both informal and formal ways.
For services such as emergency food, utility, and shelter assistance; child
care; and prevention programs for teen pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic
violence, nonprofits provide the primary supports to needy families in their
communities. In many cases, nonprofits do not seek or obtain state or federal
monies for services but have come to rely increasingly on private sources of
support. In other instances, DHS may refer clients seeking supportive services
to nonprofit providers through collaborative arrangements. Such arrangements,
although formal, are not necessarily accompanied by funding. This is particularly
true for child welfare services and nonprofit providers of prevention and intervention
services.
The funding that does flow from DHS to nonprofit providers
is perceived to have many regulatory strings attached. Nonprofit officials cite
the increasing bureaucracy of DHS, with constant audits of provider activities,
as a major barrier to service provision. It is unclear, however, to what extent
oversight over services is determined by the state or by federal regulations.
Providers clearly want to shift emphasis from an environment focused on justifying
expenses to DHS to one that places a premium on providing innovative and flexible
services.
Overall, interactions between DHS and providers seemed strained
at the time of the site visit, but there were signs that this situation was
changing. DHS had begun a series of training sessions for nonprofit providers
about changes in welfare rules, administrative procedures, and client requirements.
Local providers viewed this as a positive step toward increasing communication
in a system that needs to draw upon all possible human and financial resources
to meet the needs of low-income families.
Privatization
Mississippi has historically engaged in a great deal of
contracting for social service delivery, but this has primarily been restricted
to nonprofit organizations. However, competitive bids for managing child care
funding and providing emergency assistance (including shelters, financial assistance,
and counseling) are open to both private companies and nonprofit organizations.
Even so, at present there is no private management involved in child care contracts.
The degree of privatization in emergency services is not known. While these
areas do provide precedents for allowing the privatization of services, privatization
has been a contentious issue over the past few years.
Governor Fordice, with his emphasis on economic development,
has been an ardent supporter of privatizing social service programs, particularly
the child support and cash assistance programs. In recent years the state has
taken a number of steps to increase the services provided through private contractors
in spite of opposition launched largely by state employees' unions and Democratic
legislators. Food Stamp program eligibility and benefit determination is conducted
in-house by DHS, but private organizations have been contracted to deliver benefits
to recipients either at specified local sites or through the mail. Child support
has sparked the greatest debate over privatization. In 1994, nearly all aspects
of the child support enforcement program in two counties were contracted to
a single private company, MAXIMUS. The results have been mixed. A recent report
by the PEER Committee, a legislative oversight committee, stated that DHS proved
more efficient at conducting child support enforcement than the contractor.47
The debate over privatization in Mississippi was amplified
with the passage of PRWORA, which allows states considerably more flexibility
in contracting to private and religious organizations. During the 1997 legislative
session, proposals were made to contract out TANF work activities programs to
public or private organizations, to expand the private contracting of child
support enforcement, and to contract out new functions of DHS resulting from
the federal welfare reform law. By the end of the legislative session, only
the child support bill explicitly included language allowing private contracting.
DHS was given authority under this bill to contract the Central Receipting and
Disbursement Unit and Directory of New Hires to private institutions insured
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Since the time of our site
visit, the state has contracted with both nonprofit and private companies, including
Lockheed, to assist in job placement efforts for TANF recipients.
Implications
of the New Federal Welfare Reform Legislation and the TANF Plan
On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed PRWORA into
law, ushering in the most significant federal welfare reform measures since
the 1988 Family Support Act. By this time, however, Mississippi had already
implemented its own series of limited welfare reforms through the New Direction
Demonstration Program waiver discussed in the section on income support programs.
PRWORA, which changed AFDC into TANF, did not change the
essential direction of reform efforts in Mississippi. However, it did have three
major effects on the state's welfare reform efforts. First, PRWORA increased
federal funding for welfare in Mississippi, at least in the short term. Federal
TANF block grant funds became available as of October 1996, but states were
not required to submit their TANF plans until July 1997. The method used to
calculate the distribution of the TANF block grant monies gave Mississippi and
other states with declining caseloads a financial incentive to start their TANF
programs as soon as possible.48 An initial TANF
plan was submitted by DHS to take effect October 1, 1996. As a result, Mississippi
received a TANF block grant of $86.7 million for federal fiscal year 1997, an
estimated $31 million more than it would have received if it had continued to
operate AFDC.49
Second, PRWORA resulted in an acceleration of the pace of
reform in Mississippi by putting welfare reform back on the agenda of legislators
and other officials. The New Direction Demonstration Program had been implemented
less than a year before, and evaluations of the demonstration were not yet complete
when the federal law was passed. The pressure of the federal law and the required
state response prompted legislators and officials to institute statewide reforms
ahead of the schedule they may have set for themselves.
The original state plan sent to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services took effect on October 1, 1996, and essentially kept Mississippi's
waiver programs in place. It was followed, however, with an amended state plan
that repealed the existing waivers and created a new cash assistance program
in conformity with federal TANF requirements and loosely based on the WorkFirst
and statewide components of the New Direction Demonstration Program. In January
1997, lawmakers began drafting legislation to replace the AFDC laws with those
necessary to implement the TANF program. Through the legislative process, a
number of provisions were added to the state's plan that were more lenient on
victims of domestic violence and that allowed college enrollment of welfare
recipients as long as they still met the 20-hour-per-week work requirement.
Most important, the degree of sanctions was lessened. Food stamp benefits are
no longer interrupted because of sanctions governing TANF receipt; however,
adult recipients who are out of compliance with work requirements lose their
Medicaid benefits for the period of the sanction. The provisions of the final
TANF program as prescribed by the state legislation (H.B. 766) are summarized
in table 8.
Third, the federal welfare reform law included a number
of state options that had not been addressed in Mississippi's own welfare reform
efforts, most notably time limits. Mississippi legislators and officials were
forced to consider broader dimensions of welfare reform in developing their
TANF program. The state generally adopted the federal guidelines for specific
welfare reform components that it had not yet considered. For example, the time
limit in Mississippi is the 60-month total and the work requirement is the 20-hour-per-week
minimum, both set at the federal level. In this sense, the state has adopted
the most lenient requirements allowable under the new federal law.50
Conclusion
The goals of welfare reform—reducing dependency and increasing
personal responsibility—present unique challenges in Mississippi. Cash assistance
from Aid to Families with Dependent Children has never been a significant resource
to low-income families in the state because of the low benefit levels. As a
result, benefits from other federal sources of assistance (Food Stamps and SSI,
in particular) are larger and provide the critical sources of support. It may
be more difficult to use the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program to affect behavior (as clearly intended by the federal legislation)
in Mississippi because the state's low cash benefit is not a strong motivation.
The state faces additional challenges in moving recipients
from welfare to work, with areas of high unemployment and limited transportation
to jobs outside the area. Respondents were most concerned about the supports
necessary for a successful transition from welfare to work. Specifically, a
general concern existed among respondents that child care has not and will not
be given enough thoughtful consideration with welfare reform. The state has
ended the entitlement to child care for families on welfare. State legislation
now asserts that child care may be provided as a support to public assistance
recipients, rather than shall be provided.
The social welfare system in Mississippi operates with limited
resources. Advocates and providers share a concern for dependent families, viewing
welfare reform as a continued call for greater action and support at the local
level. In Mississippi, local-level providers and the nonprofit community are
accustomed to being primary players in the delivery of social services. Yet
this group questions how much further its resources can stretch in an era of
potentially increasing need.
There is a sense that the environment of welfare reform
is beginning to foster greater collaboration among local providers and state
agencies to more effectively combine limited resources in an effort to assist
families in their progress toward self-sufficiency,
Notes
1.
Childhood immunization is a requirement that
families receiving TANF assistance in Mississippi must meet. See the section
on basic income support programs for further details.
2. Annie
E. Casey Foundation, 1998 Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being.
1998. The 10 selected measures include percentage of low birth-weight babies;
infant mortality rate; child death rate; rate of teen deaths by accident, homicide,
and suicide; teen birthrate; juvenile violent crime arrest rate; percentage
of teens who are high school dropouts; percentage of teens not attending school
and not working; percentage of children in poverty; and percentage of families
with children headed by a single parent.
3. Mississippi
Forum on Children and Families, background paper.
4. Mississippi
Forum on Children and Families, background paper.
5. Center
for Policy Research and Planning, "Mississippi Economic Review and Outlook."
Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, February 1996.
6. State of Mississippi
Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1998. Legislative
Budget Board, 1996.
7. R.N.
Anderson, K.D. Kochanek, and S.L. Murphy. "Report of Final Mortality Statistics,
1995." Monthly Vital Statistics Report 45 (11, Supp. 2). Hyattsville,
Md., National Center for Health Statistics, 1997. Also previous issues of this
annual report.
8. Mississippi
Department of Health Annual Report, 1996.
9. Division
of Economic Assistance, Mississippi: Department of Human Services.
10. State
of Mississippi Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1998.
Legislative Budget Board, 1996.
11. The
federal government provides 100 percent of food stamp benefit costs and at least
half of food stamp administrative costs in Mississippi, as in all other states.
AFDC benefit costs are divided between the state and federal government according
to the federal Medicaid match rate and based on per capita income. In 1996,
Mississippi had the most beneficial match rate of all states, with the federal
government incurring 78 percent of all benefit costs. AFDC administrative costs
are split evenly between the federal and state governments.
12. Food
stamp benefits decrease with income (including unearned income such as AFDC).
The low AFDC benefits in Mississippi, however, lower the food stamp benefit
by a much smaller amount than in most other states, resulting in a food stamp
benefit that exceeds the AFDC benefit. The $315 food stamp benefit amount for
a family of three is based on Urban Institute calculations.
13. Percentages
for Mississippi and the nation were calculated for 1995 for a family of three
after one year of earned income. For further information see S. Zedlewski and
L. Giannarelli, "Diversity among State Welfare Programs: Implications for Reform."
New Federalism: Issues and Options for States, Series A, No. A-1, Washington,
D.C., The Urban Institute, January 1997.
14. Amendments
to the waiver were approved September 1, 1995, and February 5, 1996.
15. All
family members lost AFDC and food stamp benefits until the adult recipient complied
with the work requirements. After two months of noncompliance, the case was
closed. Families with closed cases were able to reapply for assistance. Only
one other state, Wisconsin, also sanctioned food stamp benefits; however, in
Wisconsin a family maintained a minimum of $10 per month in food stamps. Information
obtained from the Urban Institute database of state family assistance program
rules, 1996.
16. The
teen parent live-at-home requirement and the social contract provision were
included in the statewide provisions of the New Direction Demonstration Program
but did not require a waiver to implement.
17. Under
AFDC, $90 of work expenses, $130 of earned income, and one-third of the remaining
earned income of the recipient was disregarded during benefit calculation. The
$30 disregard was limited to the first 4 months of earnings and the one-third
disregard was limited to the first 12 months of earnings.
18. The
30-day waiting period stipulates that UP cases are ineligible for assistance
for 30 days after the principal wage earner becomes unemployed. The 100-hour
rule stipulates that the principal wage earners in UP applicant and recipient
cases who work more than 100 hours a month are not eligible for assistance.
The 6 out of 13 quarters work history rule stipulates that the principal wage
earner must have worked for 6 out of the past 13 quarters in order to be eligible
for assistance. According to the terms and conditions of the waiver, the removal
of these provisions was to be implemented statewide. During the period the waiver
was in effect, however, this provision was implemented only in the six WorkFirst
counties.
19. Bill
M. Brister, Jesse D. Beeler, and Phillip D. Taylor, "Implementation Process
Study." Mississippi New Direction Project Evaluation. Millsaps Else School
of Management Center for Applied Research, March 1997.
20. Jason
DeParle, "What About Mississippi? A Special Report—Welfare Law Weighs Heavy
in Delta, Where Jobs Are Few." New York Times, October 16, 1997, Section
A, Page 1.
21. Bill
M. Brister, Jesse D. Beeler, and Phillip D. Taylor, "Implementation Process
Study." Mississippi New Direction Project Evaluation. Millsaps Else School
of Management Center for Applied Research, March 1997.
22. Papers
critical of the WorkFirst approach in Mississippi include the following: Marianne
Hill, "Can Workfare Work in Mississippi?" CPRP Economic Brief No. 9610, Center
for Policy Research and Planning, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning,
January 1997. Hane Ishee and Mimi Salloum, "In Their Own Words: Mothers in Poverty
Talk about the WorkFirst Program."
23. Governor's
Coordination and Special Services Plan, State of Mississippi, for Program Years
1996 and 1997. Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development,
Employment Training Division, May 1, 1996.
24. A
state-initiated mandate dictates that at least 30 percent of the individuals
served through JTPA Title II-A funds (targeted at economically disadvantaged
adults) are welfare recipients and that at least 35 percent of the caseload
served through JTPA Title II-B and Title II-C funds (targeted at youth employment
and training programs) are welfare recipients.
25. Mississippi
Educational Network. "Skill/Tech: Mississippi Workforce Education Act of 1994"
(web page): http://etv.state.ms.us/Learning-Exchange/LEXNewsInfo/SkillTech.html,
1997.
26. State
Board of Community and Junior Colleges. One-Stop Career Center presentation
packet, 1997.
27. State
Board of Community and Junior Colleges. One-Stop Career Center presentation
packet, 1997.
28.
Family copayments do not apply to families receiving public assistance. Copayments
are introduced while receiving TCC.
29. The
State of Mississippi Child Care and Development Block Grant Program Plan for
the period September 30, 1996, through September 30, 1999, as submitted to the
Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
30. Committee
on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1996 Green Book. Washington,
D.C., Government Printing Office, November 4, 1996.
31. The
Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review
(PEER Committee). "An Evaluation of the Department of Human Services, Child
Support Enforcement Division's Accountability Information Systems." Report to
the Mississippi Legislature, April 15, 1997.
32. Medicaid
issues are not covered extensively in this report. A separate report has been
released on health care programs for low-income families in Mississippi, and
information on Medicaid presented here draws heavily from that report. See L.
Ku, A. Berkowitz, F. Ullman, and M. Regenstein, Health Policy for Low-Income
People in Mississippi. Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, January 1998.
33. A
gatekeeper model of managed care assigns a primary care physician to each patient.
This physician is the primary point of contact for all health care services
and provides referrals to specialists as needed. A capitated system pays a fixed
amount to an entity that is responsible for providing all covered health care
services. See the Health Policy report cited in note 32 for further information.
34. We
learned from respondents that some reports are immediately rejected as being
inappropriate or outside the purview of the agency. However, without statistics
on the actual number of reports, not just those investigated, we are unable
to determine an investigation rate.
35. Children's
Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mississippi Child
and Family Services: Pre-Pilot Review Final Report, November 20, 1995.
36. Child
Welfare League of America, Child Abuse and Neglect: A Look at the States.
The CWLA Stat Book. 1997.
37. Mississippi
Department of Human Services, Mississippi Child Abuse/Neglect Statistics for
Calendar Year 1996.
38. Children's
Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family
Services Review: State Self-Assessment. Mississippi Pre-Pilot Version, March
1995.
39. Child
Welfare League of America, Child Abuse and Neglect: A Look at the States.
The CWLA Stat Book. 1997.
40. D.L.
McMillan and L.H. Southward, eds. "A Summary of Mississippi's Five-Year Plan:
Family Preservation/Family Support Services—Mississippi Department of Human
Services Planning Document." Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State
University, July 1995.
41. K.A.
Moore. Teenage Childbearing: A Pragmatic Perspective. Washington, D.C.,
Child Trends, Inc., 1993. R.A. Maynard (ed.), Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood
Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing. New York,
The Robin Hood Foundation, 1996.
42. Mississippi
State Department of Health web site: http://www.msdh.state.mu.us.
43. S.J.
Ventura, J.A. Martin, S.C. Curtin, and T.J. Mathews, "Report of Final Natality
Statistics, 1996." Monthly Vital Statistics Report 46 (11, Supp.). Hyattsville,
Md., National Center for Health Statistics, 1998.
44. The
Family Planning Program, created in 1970, is administered by the Office of Family
Planning in the Office of Population Affairs of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. It is a categorical grant program that provides funding
for comprehensive family planning services. The Maternal and Child Health Services
Title V Block Grant was created by the Social Security Act of 1935 to improve
health and welfare services for mothers and children.
45. PRWORA
included the creation of a yearly fund of $50 million appropriated for federal
fiscal years 1998–2002 for defined abstinence education programs in the
states. The funds are administered through the Maternal and Child Health Block
Grant and disbursed to the states by formula on the basis of the proportion
of children under the poverty level in the state.
46. J.
DeParle, "Welfare Reform Creates New Hardship in Mississippi." New York Times,
October 16, 1997, Section A, p. 1.
47. The
PEER Committee, "An Evaluation of the Department of Human Services, Child Support
Enforcement Division's Accountability Information Systems." Report to the Mississippi
Legislature. April 15, 1997.
48. Each
state receives the federal share of its AFDC spending averaged over 1992–94,
or in 1994, or in 1995, whichever is highest.
49. The
PEER Committee, "A Review of Mississippi's 1997 Welfare Reform Legislation."
Report to the Mississippi Legislature. June 10, 1997.
50. The
extension of transitional Medicaid requires a waiver from the Health Care Financing
Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. At the time
this report was written, the state had not yet submitted its waiver request.
Appendix: List
of Interview Sources
Interviews were conducted with representatives
of the following agencies in Mississippi:
State-Level Interviews
Legislature
Various Mississippi state senators
Legislative Budget Office
Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation
and Expenditure Review (PEER)
State Departments
Mississippi State Department of
Education
Mississippi State Department of Health
Academic/Research Organizations
Millsaps College, Center for Applied Research
Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, Center
for Policy Research and Planning
State Community and Junior Colleges Board
Nonprofit/Advocacy Organizations
The Coalition for Mississippi Children
Mississippi Block Grant Task Force
Mississippi Children's Home and Family Services
Mississippi Food Network
Mississippi Forum on Children and Families, Inc.
Mississippi Human Services Agenda
Mississippi Voices for Children
City of Vicksburg and Warren County
Local politicians
Local Department of Human Services
Vicksburg Medicaid office
Vicksburg Public Housing Authority
Vicksburg/Warren School District
Warren County Health Department
Warren County JTPA
Warren-Yazoo
Mental Health Services
Nonprofit/Advocacy Organizations
CAP Center
Central Mississippi Legal Services
Crisis Pregnancy Center
Girl Scouts Council
Good Shepherd Community Center
Haven House Family Shelter
United Way of Central Mississippi
Vicksburg Family Development Services
Warren County Children's Shelter
Warren County Family Advocacy Committee
Warren, Washington, Issaquena, Sharkey Community
Action Agency (WWISCAA)
We Care Community Services
YMCA
City of Jackson and Hinds County
Central Mississippi Planning and Development District
City of Jackson, Human and Cultural Services Division
Hinds County Community College
Hinds County Human Resource Agency
Hinds County Project Head Start
The Housing Authority of the City of Jackson
Jackson Private Industry Council
MAXIMUS (private corporation)
West Jackson Community Development Corporation
Nonprofit/Advocacy Organizations
Catholic Charities, Inc.
Family Resource Center
Moore Community House
Operation Shoe String
The Salvation Army
Stewpot Community Services
United
Way of the Capital Area
Tables
 |
|
|
|
Table 1
Mississippi State Characteristics, 1995
|
|
|
|
Mississippi
|
United States
|
|
|
Population characteristics
|
|
|
|
Population
(1995)a (in thousands)
|
2,600
|
260,202
|
|
Percent
under 18 (1995)a
|
27.4%
|
26.8%
|
|
Percent
Hispanic (1995)a
|
0.7%
|
10.7%
|
|
Percent
Non-Hispanic Black (1995)a
|
38.7%
|
12.5%
|
|
Percent
Noncitizen Immigrant (1996)b
|
0.9%
|
6.4%
|
|
Percent
Rural (1990)c
|
76.0%
|
36.4%
|
|
Growth
(1990-95)d
|
4.7%
|
5.6%
|
|
| Births
per 1,000 Women ages 15-44 (1994)e |
68.2
|
66.7
|
| Percent
to Unmarried Women (1994)e |
45.4%
|
32.6%
|
| Percent
to Women under 20 That Were Nonmarital (1994)e |
80%
|
76%
|
| Per
1,000 Women ages 15-19 (1994)e |
83
|
59
|
|
|
|
State economic characteristics
|
|
|
| Per
Capita Income (1995)f |
$16,683
|
$23,208
|
| Percent
Change in Per Capita Income (1990–95)f, g |
31.3%
|
21.2%
|
| Percent
Poor (1994)h |
22.8%
|
14.3%
|
| Unemployment
Rate (1996)i |
6.1%
|
5.4%
|
| Employment
Rate (1996)i, j |
58.5%
|
63.2%
|
| Percent
Jobs in Manufacturing (1995)k |
21.6%
|
16.0%
|
| Percent
Jobs in Service Sector (1995)k |
20.4%
|
23.1%
|
| Percent
Jobs in Public Sector (1995)k |
15.3%
|
14.7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family profile
|
|
|
| Percent
Two-Parent Families (1994)h, l |
32.1%
|
35.7%
|
| Percent
One-Parent Families (1994)h, m |
18.6%
|
13.8%
|
| Percent
Mothers with Child age 12 or under |
|
|
| Working
Full Time (1994)h, n |
44.7%
|
38.1%
|
| Working
Part Time (1994)h, o |
14.0%
|
16.1%
|
| In
Two-Parent Families and Working (1994)h, p |
38.8%
|
40.3%
|
| In
One-Parent Families and Working (1994)h, p |
19.9%
|
13.9%
|
| Percent
Children below Poverty (1994)h |
34.4%
|
21.7%
|
| Median
Income of Families with Children (1994)h |
$26,502
|
$37,109
|
| Percent
Children Uninsured (1995)a |
14.1%
|
10.0%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political
|
|
|
|
Governor's Affiliation (1996)q
|
Republican
|
|
|
Party Control of Senate (1996)q
|
34D-18R
|
|
|
Party Control of House (1996)q
|
83D-36R-2I
|
|
|
a.Two-year concatenated March Current Population Survey (CPS) files, 1995 and
1996. These files are edited by the Urban Institute's Trim2 microsimulation
model. Excludes those in families with active military members.
b.Three-year average of the Current Population Survey (CPS) (March 1996–March
1998) edited by the Urban Institute to correct misreporting of citizenship.
c.U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population: General Population
Characteristics. Washington, D.C., 1992.
d.U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
1996 (116th edition). Washington, D.C., 1996. 1995 population as of July
1. 1990 population as of April 1.
e.U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report,
Vol. 44, No. 3 and Vol. 44, No. 11.
f.State Personal Income, 1969–1995. CD-ROM. Washington, D.C.: Regional
economic Measurement Division (BE-55), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics
and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, October 1996.
g.Computed using midyear population estimates of the Bureau of the Census.
h.CPS three-year average (March 1994–March 1996, where 1994 is the center year),
edited using the Urban Institute's TRIM2 microsimulation model.
i.U.S. Department of Labor, State and Regional Unemployment, 1996 Annual
Averages, USDL 97–88. Washington, D.C., March 18, 1997.
j.Employment rate is calculated using the civilian noninstitutionalized population
age 16 years and over.
k.Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995 Geographic Profile of Employment and
Unemployment.
l.Percent of all families (two or more related persons living in the same household)
that include one or more related children and where the head of the family is
nonelderly, married, and the spouse is present.
m.Percent of all families (two or more related persons living in the same household)
that include one or more related children and where the head of the family is
not married or elderly.
n.Full-time work is defined as at least 1,750 hours per year (50 weeks x 35
hours per week).
o.Part-time work is defined as at least 910 hours per year (52 weeks x 17.5
hours per week) and less than 1,750 hours per year (50 weeks x 35 hours per
week).
p.Working is defined as working at least 910 hours per year (52 weeks x 17.5
hours per week).
q.National Conference of State Legislatures, 1997 partisan Composition,
May 7 Update. D indicates Democrat, R indicates Republican, and I indicates
Independent.
|
|
|
|
Table 2
Organizational structure
of Social Welfare Programs
|
|
|
Program
|
State Agency Location |
Local Administrative Arrangement |
|
|
|
|
Income
Security
|
|
AFDC
|
DHS,
Division of Economic Assistance |
84
local DHS offices |
|
Food
Stamps
|
DHS, Division of Economic Assistance |
84
local DHS offices |
| |
|
Education
and Training
|
|
JOBS/WorkFirst
|
DHS, Division
of Economic Assistance |
PDDs or CAAs
|
|
JTPA
|
DECD, Employment and Training
Division
|
5 SDAs administered by
PICs or PDDs
|
| One-Stop
Career Centers |
State Workforce
Development Advisory
Council |
15 District Workforce
Development Councils/SBCJC |
|
|
| Child
Care/Child Development |
| Child
Care |
DHS,
Office for Children and Youth |
PDDs or CAAs |
| Head
Start |
N/A
|
Direct providers |
|
|
|
Child
Support Enforcement
|
DHS, Division of Child Support Enforcement
|
84 local DHS offices
|
|
|
| Child
Welfare |
| Child
Protection |
DHS, Division of Family and
Children's Services |
84 local DHS offices
|
| Family
Preservation |
DHS, Division of Family and
Children's Services |
Direct providers |
| Foster
Care |
DHS,
Division of Family and
Children's Services |
84
local DHS offices |
| Adoption
Assistance |
DHS, Division of Family and
Children's Services |
84
local DHS offices |
|
|
| Emergency
Services |
|
LIHEAP
and CSBG
|
DHS, Division
of Community Services |
CAAs
|
|
ESG,
CDBG
|
DECD, Community Service Division
|
Direct Providers
|
|
|
| Health |
| Medicaid/HealthMACS |
Governor's
Office, Division of Medicaid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3
Social Welfare Spending
for Families with Children in Mississippi, FY 1995
|
|
|
|
Program
|
| Federal |
State/
Local |
Total |
|
|
$ in millions
|
|
|
Spending per
Poor Family |
|
|
State
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
Income
Security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFDC
Benefits
|
$59.0 |
$16.1 |
$75.1
|
–13.6% |
$171 |
$851 |
|
AFDC
Administration
|
7.3 |
7.3 |
14.6 |
9.5
|
33
|
136 |
|
SSI
for Children
|
N/A |
0.0 |
122.6
|
22.9
|
279 |
184 |
|
EITC
Federal
|
544.6 |
0.0 |
544.6 |
54.4 |
1,241 |
1,010 |
|
EITC
State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Food
Security |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Food
Stamps, households |
324.8 |
0.0 |
324.8
|
–7.7
|
740 |
711 |
| with
children |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Child
Nutrition |
172.7 |
0.0 |
172.7 |
–7.0 |
394 |
344 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Education
and Training |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JOBS
|
15.8 |
7.1 |
22.9 |
72.9
|
52 |
59 |
| JTPA
|
24.1 |
0.0 |
24.1
|
–39.2 |
55 |
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Child
Care/Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AFDC
|
5.1 |
1.4 |
6.5 |
50.0 |
15 |
61 |
| At-Risk
|
1.2 |
0.3 |
1.5
|
a |
3 |
20 |
| CCDBG
|
16.3 |
0.0 |
16.3
|
–0.5 |
37 |
34 |
| Head
Start |
95.5 |
0.0 |
95.5 |
14.3 |
218 |
117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Child
Support Enforcement
|
21.6 |
9.9 |
31.5
|
29.9
|
72 |
115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Child
Welfare |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Child
Protection/Family |
7.0 |
2.3 |
9.4 |
58.2 |
21 |
22 |
| Preservation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Foster
Care |
5.6 |
4.1 |
9.6 |
41.3 |
22 |
222 |
| Adoption
Assistance |
0.7 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
64.6 |
2 |
29 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IV-A
Emergency Assistance |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
b |
0 |
124 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Health |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Medicaid,
children only |
193.4 |
52.7 |
246.1 |
29.1 |
561 |
984 |
|
a. There was no At-Risk child care spending in
Mississippi in 1993.
b. There was no IV-A Emergency Assistance spending in Mississippi in 1993
or 1995.
|
|
|
| Table 4
Child Care Services in
Mississippi |
|
| |
Funding: FY 1995
Federal/State |
Monthly Income Eligibility
Limit (Family of Three) |
Priority Groups |
|
Type of Assistance |
Waiting Lists for
Assistance |
|
| AFDC/JOBS |
|
N/A |
N/A |
|
Vouchers |
No, but could develop |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| At-Risk |
$6,399,980/1,693,879 |
$1,500 |
Unknowna |
|
Slots/vouchersa, b |
Unknowna |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TCC |
|
$1,500 |
1) Special needs children |
|
Vouchers |
Yes |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
2) Protective servicesc |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
3) Children in very low income families |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CCDBG |
16,286,928/— |
$1,500 |
4) Children of teen parents enrolled
in school |
|
75% vouchers through Child Care
Certificate Program |
Yes |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
5) Children in Head Start in need
of wraparound care |
|
Some slots through contracts |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SSBG |
1,200,000/— |
$1,500 |
6) Children of low-income parents who are
working or in an approved educational or training program
|
|
Some slots through contracts |
Unknownd |
|
Sources: Mississippi Child Care and Development
Block Grant Program Plan, FY 1996, and interviews.
a. Determined or managed at the local level by
government entity providing matching funds.
b. In Jackson, the city funds five day-care centers to provide slots for low-income
children.
c. Families with protective service needs can have both income eligibility and
family copayments waived by the Office for Children and Youth.
d. Waiting lists are managed at the provider level.
|
|
|
Table 5
Child Support Enforcement |
|
| Performance Indicators |
FY 1993 |
FY 1994 |
FY 1995 |
FY 1996 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Collections Distributed |
$50,684,651 |
$59,566,703 |
$61,987,529 |
$84,550,818 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Paternities Established |
7,503 |
9,843 |
10,844 |
14,246 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Obligations Established |
7,919 |
9,477 |
9,846 |
18,518 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Absent Parents Located |
27,244 |
34,974 |
50,513 |
136,945 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Court Orders Enforced/Modified |
N/A |
12,085 |
9,425 |
18,518 |
|
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
|
|
|
| Table 6
Child Welfare Services |
|
| Characteristics |
Program
Category |
|
| |
Prevention |
Intervention |
Placement |
Treatment
Services
|
Adoption |
Family
Preservation |
Family
Support |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Geographic Area(s) |
|
Statewide |
Statewide |
Statewide |
Statewide |
Statewide |
Targeted |
Statewide
RFPs |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Number Served |
|
25,520 |
71,548 |
7,357 |
167 |
786 |
N/A |
N/A |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Estimated Expenditures:
Federala |
|
$2,426,055 |
$5,339,053 |
$16,407,957 |
$2,499,174 |
$1,503,442 |
$1,043,500 |
$3,130,505 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Estimated Expenditures: State/ Local/Otherb |
|
$1,555,298 |
$2,048,037 |
$6,364,323 |
$1,537,158 |
$628,710 |
$104,350c |
$313,050c |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtotal |
|
$3,981,353 |
$7,387,090 |
$22,772,280 |
$4,036,332 |
$2,132,152 |
$1,147,850 |
$3,443,555 |
|
Source: Mississippi
Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children's Services. Report
to the Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1995.
a. Includes the Social Services Block Grant,
Title IV-B, Title IV-E, and various other federally funded grant programs.
b. Includes funds appropriated by the state legislature and local matching
funds from county level Boards of Supervisors.
c. Includes a 10 percent community match.
|
|
|
| Table
7 Emergency Assistance |
|
| Type of Services |
Administration |
Number Served |
|
|
| Diversion Services (Rent/Utility/Case
Management) |
|
|
|
| Low-Income
Home Energy |
DHS, Division of Community Services |
36,000 households, |
| Assistance
Program |
|
70,350 individuals |
|
| Community
Services Block Grant |
DHS, Division of Community Services |
47,789 households, |
| |
|
93,378 individuals |
|
| Federal
Emergency Management |
Local providers |
Unknown |
| Agency—EA
funds |
|
|
|
| Homeless Assistance Programs |
|
|
|
| Emergency
Homeless Program |
DECD, Community Services Division |
4,500 individuals |
|
| Emergency
Shelter Grant |
DECD, Community Services Division |
8,437 individuals |
|
| Food Assistance Programs |
|
|
|
| The
Emergency Food Assistance |
DHS, Division
of Economic Assistance |
Unknown* |
| Program |
|
|
|
| Commodity
Food and Nutrition Program |
DECD, Community Services
Division |
4,838 families, |
| |
|
10,897 individuals |
|
Source: Department of Human Services and
interviews.
*$3 million worth of food distributed to food banks
and soup kitchens.
|
|
|
| Table
8 Provisions of the Mississippi TANF Assistance
Program |
|
|
| Authority to administer TANF |
DHS |
|
| Entitlement |
No entitlement to assistance. |
|
| Time limits |
60 months total. Parents
or caretakers must participate in work activities once the department determines
that they are ready to work or once they have reached 24 months of assistance. |
|
| Family cap |
Benefits are limited
to children existing or conceived at the time of initial application, unless
waived by the department or unless the child was born after 12 months off
assistance. |
|
| Maximum benefit levels |
Benefits will not exceed
$60 for the first family member, $36 for the second family member, and $24
for each additional family member. |
|
| Work exemptions |
Incapacity; temporary
illness or injury; in the third trimester of pregnancy; caretaker of a child
under 12 months for not more than 12 months of the 60-month maximum benefit
period; caretaker of an ill or incapacitated person; age, if over 60 or
under 18 years of age; receiving treatment for substance abuse; in a two-parent
family, the caretaker of a severely disabled child; or history of having
been a victim of domestic violence, for a period as deemed necessary by
the department but not to exceed a total of 12 months. |
|
| Work activities |
Unsubsidized employment; subsidized
employment; work experience; on-the-job training; job search and job readiness
limited to six weeks; community service programs; vocational educational
training (not to exceed 12 months); child care services to an individual
participating in a community service program; satisfactory attendance at
high school or education directly related to employment for persons under
age 20 who have not completed high school or received a GED. |
|
| Work sanctions |
First violation: complete
termination of assistance for two months or until compliance, whichever
is longer. Second violation: termination of assistance for six months or
until compliance, whichever is longer. Third violation: termination of assistance
for 12 months or until compliance, whichever is longer. Fourth violation:
permanent termination. |
|
| Minor parent requirements |
Minor parents (under
18) who are not married must live with an adult parent or guardian and must
participate in educational activities toward completion of a high school
diploma. |
|
| Parental requirements |
Parents receiving TANF
are required to make sure that their school-age children meet satisfactory
levels of school attendance or face a sanction; parents receiving TANF are
required to immunize their children or face a sanction. |
|
|
About the Authors
Gretchen G. Kirby was a senior research analyst with Child Trends, Inc., whose work focused on child care issues as well as the methods of collecting, using, and reporting social indicators of family and child well-being at the federal and state level. She was involved with the case study component of the Assessing the New Federalism project covering Massachusetts, Michigan, and Mississippi. She is currently a research analyst at Mathematica Policy Research.
L. Jerome Gallagher is a research associate with the Urban Institute's Income and Benefits Policy Center. His research interests include welfare reform, income support, and poverty. For the Assessing the New Federalism project, he has surveyed state TANF policies
and General Assistance programs.
LaDonna Pavetti is a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research. She is a noted expert and the author of numerous reports on welfare reform. While at the Urban Institute she worked in the Human Resources Policy Center. Her most recent work includes a series of three
reports on potential employment outcomes for welfare recipients: How Much
More Can They Work? Setting Realistic Work Expectations for Welfare Recipients; Against the Odds: Steady Employment among Low-Skilled Women; and Moving Up, Moving Out, or Going Nowhere: A Study of the Employment Patterns of Young Women and the Implications for Welfare Mothers (with Greg Acs).
Milda Saunders is an analyst at Abt Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She worked as a research assistant for the Urban Institute from 1995 to 1997. While at the Institute, she worked on numerous projects related to housing, community development, and community building.
Tennille Smith was a research intern with the Urban Institute's Human Resources Policy Center during the spring of 1997. She is pursuing a degree in public administration from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
