I’m torn when it comes to the idea of having programs run by states. On one hand it is a great way to run experiments to try different ideas and see what works best. The problem is that Americans are particularly stubborn to facts and infrequently make government policy decisions based on evidence, preferring dogma instead. So you can run experiments that show, for example, that spending money on social services saves money in the long run by helping people lead more stable and productive lives, avoid getting healthcare from emergency departments, or that spending money on sex education and birth control leads to fewer abortions and teen pregnancies, or that investing in public education gives dividends decades later when you have an skilled and educated workforce. I could go on and on.
But many states remain stubbornly wedded to pet ideas regardless of what facts show, do we end up saving money on public housing by housing people instead on the streets and in jails, or whatever other short-sighted policy is the flavor-du-jour. On a more personal level I feel for the people who live in states with so little support because they get doubly screwed. Life throws them curve balls and then the system further tramps them down instead of lending a helping hand.
When I was a kid my mother lost her job when her insight went belly up. She was able to get tuition assistance for retraining in a different industry through our state. It was tough for her going back to school when her own kids were in high school, but she did it and went on to have a new 15-year career as a productive citizen. Much better that our state invested in her in the form of job retraining because they got more than that sum back in payroll taxes once she got back into the job market.