{
  "id": "RL32859",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32859",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 303107,
      "date": "2005-04-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:47:15.728029",
      "title": "The \"Superwaiver\" Proposal and Service Integration: A History of Federal Initiatives",
      "summary": "As part of the continuing debate over welfare reform reauthorization, the Bush Administration\nhas\nsupported a proposal that would enable states to obtain waivers from certain federal rules of various\nwelfare-related programs in order to integrate activities across a wide spectrum of social services. \nThis proposal, often referred to as the \"superwaiver,\" would provide broad waiver authority to\nexecutive branch agencies that administer covered programs. The Administration has argued that\ngiving state and local authorities more flexibility to coordinate workforce and family support\nprograms can help to promote self-sufficiency among low-income families. Waiver initiatives like\nthe \"superwaiver\" are one type of approach to service integration -- a broad and more enduring policy\nissue that has been raised in response to criticism that social service programs are fragmented, costly\nto administer, and complicated for low-income families to maneuver.\n Over the past 30 years, there have been numerous federal-level service integration initiatives. \nIn addition to waivers, approaches to service integration have included grant management reform,\nadministrative simplification, demonstration or pilot projects, and block grants. Past federal efforts\nreveal that issues related to potential costs and savings, programs to be covered, administering\nauthority, evaluations, and accountability are important components that can influence the success\nof service integration initiatives. Ironically, the biggest lesson has been that reform itself can be\nfragmented, and requires a great deal of effort and strong leadership to coordinate and implement\nin its own right.\n Lessons from past initiatives have shown that service integration requires resources to execute\nin the short-run and it is not clear whether integration is cost-effective in the long-run, taking these\ncosts into account. Federal programs included in integration efforts generally are those that provide\nservices to meet \"basic needs\" of low-income individuals and families, but the debate over which\nprograms and types of requirements to include can be highly political and lead to wide variation in\nthe types of projects undertaken. Designation of an organizational body with authority to implement\nan initiative can facilitate federal participation, expedite approval of projects, provide technical\nassistance, and act as an oversight entity. Pilot and demonstration projects require substantive\nevaluations in order to compare the effectiveness of varying types of inter-agency linkages and\napproaches to integration to inform future efforts. Developing strong performance measures is\ncritical to enhancing accountability of service integration projects.\n This report reviews the history, trends, and outcomes of past federal service integration\ninitiatives that might be seen as comparable to the current \"superwaiver\" proposal. These past\nattempts are wide ranging, but related in the sense that they have sought to cut across multiple\nfederal program boundaries in order to give state and local agencies more flexibility to integrate and\ncoordinate programs that serve the same or overlapping low-income populations.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32859",
          "sha1": "3a03d353829a2ff2f23b68f4c529dcc68e8461cc",
          "filename": "files/20050413_RL32859_3a03d353829a2ff2f23b68f4c529dcc68e8461cc.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050413_RL32859_3a03d353829a2ff2f23b68f4c529dcc68e8461cc.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Domestic Social Policy",
    "Health Policy"
  ]
}