1. Policy Devolution and the Racial Politics of Poverty Governance Joe Soss Humphrey School of Public Affairs Departments of Political Science & Sociology University of Minnesota Presentation based on Joe Soss, Richard Fording, and Sanford Schram. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. University of Chicago Press.

2. The Transformation of Poverty Governance Neoliberalism Agenda: contrast with laissez-faire Operations: devolution, privatization, performance Paternalism Agenda: set and enforce behavioral expectations, promote social order and individual self-discipline Operations: directive and supervisory admin, penal and custodial logics focused on noncompliance PG: more muscular in its normative enforcement, more dispersed and diverse in its organization

3. Continuity and Change in Poverty Governance Principle of Less Eligibility (PLE): a default logic disrupted by episodic political pressures. Double Regulation of the Poor: rising correctional dimensions of the PLE, convergence as a single system, extension of penal logic/language to welfare Blurring of State/Market Boundary: PG as a site of profitable investment and labor market activity Disciplinary Goals, Diverse Tools: goal of producing compliant (self-disciplining) worker- citizens, attractive and available to employers

4. Mainsprings of National Change Conservative Mobilization Business, Racial, Neo-, Religious/Social Investments: think tanks, electoral/lobbying Racialized “wedge issues” targeting fractures in the Democratic coalition Socio-economic Change Decline of markets/wages for low-skilled labor Compounding of social problems in racially segregated areas of concentrated poverty The Underclass as a repository for diverse anxieties, growing push to enforce social order and discipline work/social behavior

5. Today’s Focus: Federalism & Devolution (Structuring the Politics of Poverty Governance) Horizontal: choice and variation across state and local jurisdictions Vertical: structured relations across federal, state, and local levels Federalism: the timing and patterning of change Devolution : In PG, a racialized policy choice that facilitates racial influences and inequalities. Racial effects depend on political and economic conditions across jurisdictions.

6. Poverty Governance, 1940s-1960s Incarceration: modest, stable rates (~.1%) Welfare: patchwork of state and local provision Barriers to access, excluded populations Intrusive, restrictive rules and admin. Low benefit levels Calibration to local needs – e.g., seasonal closures in the South

7. Disruption in the 1960s: Political insurgency and welfare rights litigation reshape the welfare settlement: Political pressures drive state benefit and caseload increases, moving them away from the PLE Expanded federal role in AFDC, constrains admin tactics for excluding/purging in the states Incarceration rates respond to insurgency, but criminal justice remains mostly state/local

8. Federal Role Explains the Timing and Focus of Shifts in Poverty Governance, 1970-1995 Criminal Justice: States are less constrained Earlier shift to more muscular approach Steep rise in incarceration across the states Welfare: States are more constrained Limits on rule and admin strategies Benefits become the focus of efforts to restore the PLE Real value of AFDC drops by roughly 50%, but caseloads fail to recede

9. Disruption and Limited Restoration of the PLE: The Benefit-Wage Ratio over Time Declining Wages Food Stamps (1964)

10. Multivariate Models of State Welfare Change: The Patterning of Decline, 1970-1995 Rates of AFDC Benefit Decline Republican Control of Govt. Higher BWR (benefits encroaching on wages) Higher black % of AFDC caseload Interaction of BWR and Black % GA Termination: Republican control, low-skilled wage levels, black % of recipients AFDC Waiver Adoption: same predictors as benefit decline

11. State-Level Patterns in Criminal Justice: Key Predictors of State Increases in Black and White Imprisonment Rates, 1976-1995

12. Federal Welfare Reform (PRWORA): A New Devolution Settlement Block grants, expansion of state rule discretion Federal mandates, asymmetric state choices Backed up by federal benchmarks, monitoring, incentives, penalties Not a handoff, a shift in the federal role. State discretion over means for achieving federally mandated, disciplinary ends. Work enforcement: now a national, bipartisan, implicitly racialized political project

13. State Choices Regarding TANF Programs Disappearance of predictors: partisan control, benefit-wage ratio (PLE), fiscal capacities, objective indicators of social problems Racial Composition strongly predicts… Time limits Family Caps Full-Family Sanctions Work Requirement Rigidity Eligibility Restrictions Second-Order Devolution

14. The Accumulation of Racial Bias: National Exposure to TANF Policy Regimes (2001)

15. Convergent Systems of Social Control TANF Regimes, Correctional Control, and Black Pop. (2001)

16. Sanction Implementation: Conservatism, Race, and Devolution Florida WT Program Higher rates in more conservative counties: half as likely to survive 12 months without a sanction Strong interaction with client race: no effect among white clients. National Analysis Interaction of local conservatism and client race observed in SOD states only

17. Black-White Sanction Disparities, Black Arrest Rates, and Benefit-Wage Ratios in Black HH Incomes (FL Counties) Convergence: Policing and Welfare Sanctioning

18. Sanctioning and Labor Market Needs: Statewide Seasonal Calibration Sanction Hazard Ratios and Tourism Revenues: r =.95

19. Sanctions and Local Labor Market Seasonality by Client Race (County-Months)

20. Concluding Remarks Contemporary poverty governance as a coherent disciplinary project. A shared logic of… Criminal justice and welfare Policy design and implementation Neoliberal paternalism as a racial project Federalism as a mechanism for calibrating PG and state/local political economies Federalism as a mechanism of racial inequality, Facilitating racial biases in policy choice Converting them into racial inequalities vis-à- vis state and market institutions

21. Policy Devolution and the Racial Politics of Poverty Governance Joe Soss Humphrey School of Public Affairs Departments of Political Science & Sociology University of Minnesota Presentation based on Joe Soss, Richard Fording, and Sanford Schram. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. University of Chicago Press.

22. Extra Slides

23. State Choices Regarding TANF Family Cap, Time Limit, Full-Family Sanction

24. State Choices Regarding TANF Work Requirement Rigidity, Eligibility Restrictions

25. State-to-Local Devolution in TANF Programs: Size & Distribution of Black Populations