TY - JOUR
T1 - Supervised devolution
T2 - The case of child-support enforcement
AU - Crowley, Jocelyn Elise
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Supervised devolution in the area of child-support enforcement has produced a tenuous but politically popular sharing of power between the federal government and the states for more than two decades. In this paradigm, policy has proceeded simultaneously along two developmental tracks. Along the first track, the federal government has pushed states toward reform by establishing the legal framework for the program. Along the second track, the federal government also has granted the states freedom to experiment with a variety of new policies, including those that target an extremely important group: low-income fathers. This freedom, however, is not without its limits. The federal government actively supervises the states' performance through a combination of financial incentives, penalties, and funding for demonstration projects. When the states have innovated in a particularly noteworthy direction, the federal government has followed through with appropriate rewards. When they have faltered, the states have faced negative repercussions. Future challenges to this delicate balance of power include protesting interstate cases, adapting to a changing clientele base, and resolving outstanding cost-sharing issues.
AB - Supervised devolution in the area of child-support enforcement has produced a tenuous but politically popular sharing of power between the federal government and the states for more than two decades. In this paradigm, policy has proceeded simultaneously along two developmental tracks. Along the first track, the federal government has pushed states toward reform by establishing the legal framework for the program. Along the second track, the federal government also has granted the states freedom to experiment with a variety of new policies, including those that target an extremely important group: low-income fathers. This freedom, however, is not without its limits. The federal government actively supervises the states' performance through a combination of financial incentives, penalties, and funding for demonstration projects. When the states have innovated in a particularly noteworthy direction, the federal government has followed through with appropriate rewards. When they have faltered, the states have faced negative repercussions. Future challenges to this delicate balance of power include protesting interstate cases, adapting to a changing clientele base, and resolving outstanding cost-sharing issues.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0039849585&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0039849585&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a030075
DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a030075
M3 - Article
VL - 30
SP - 99
EP - 116
JO - Publius
JF - Publius
SN - 0048-5950
IS - 1
ER -