Lisa Cali
Americans tend to see welfare reform as an answer to the problems of America's pocketbooks. People have the notion that if we change how our welfare system works all areas of life will change. This is an understandable idea considering that reforms would, in theory, change work habits, child support enforcement, put time limits on welfare benefit receipt, and ultimately would break the cycle of dependency on the system. People not participating as recipients think this is an idea worth listening to, but those who are at the center of the debate are those people who will be affected most by these welfare reforms, the people who are receiving these welfare benefits. The debate over social provisions in the United States always seems to come back to the question of economics, quite possibly because many people see welfare reform as a reform of our economy.
The debate on welfare is one that has played a major role in society for many years. The trends in the welfare system of the United States have, in recent years, undermined the basic values of work, family and responsibility, leading to the vicious cycle of dependency which hurts the people who's ultimate good it was to help. Welfare on a whole has been considered to be unfair to everyone. Tax payers feel their money is being put into failing programs, while people who are in need are being trapped into these programs which have destroyed many opportunities and hopes. Society feels that the attention welfare gets pushes aside the needs of communities such as churches and families. The main cash assistance program to the non-elderly is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
The debate has come along since welfare was first introduces. The welfare problem has plagued many people and has been the subject of many political campaigns. Changes have always been asked for and the recent welfare reform under President Clinton is a prime example of the debate and the problems and solutions of this debate. The Welfare Reform Bill as Clinton say "is a real step forward for our country, our values and for people who are on welfare." Welfare was introduced as a short term solution yet for many people it has become a way of life. Clinton's Welfare Reform Bill attempts to bring welfare back to its original state of "temporary" help.
The main cash assistance program to the non-elderly is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Established in 1935 by the Social Security Act, which was administered by the department of health and human services, AFDC was designed with the idea of children and unmarried mothers in mind. In 1981 there was an all time high of 3.9 million families receiving AFDC but under the Reagan administration this number increased to an amazing 11 million Americans receiving payments in 1987. Along with this increase in numbers comes an increase in the amount of money that has been spent on AFDC. Over the 3 year period of 1982-1985 there was a 3 percent increase in expenditures. There has been so much talk about changing our budgeting habits yet money had continued to be put out for such programs which, as the numbers tell you, have not been succeeding. Instead of decreasing dependency these welfare programs have become the backbone of the lives of many Americans.
AFDC was traditionally funded as a money per person system. Depending on the number of people enrolled, each state would receive a certain amount of money. If the enrollment levels decreased the money would also decrease. States were, in a sense, being punished for lowering the number of welfare cases. The historical welfare reform of the 104th Congress changed this funding system. Each state is now given a fixed money amount which increases year to year, no matter how many welfare cases are in existence. If there is a decrease in the number of cases and surplus funds exist, states may use the money towards other welfare efforts. If the case number increases the state bears the burden.
While there is always talk about what is wrong with the system, serious reform has been fought for a long time. Liberals have believed in the traditional ways of the American government. They think giving welfare checks without asking for anything in return will help to end the existence of the low class person. Throughout history we have watched this traditional welfare system take away the "American dream" of independence and wealth and saw a system of poverty and dependence become a staple of American life. What was created as a system to help people, for the most part, had not succeeded. Welfare reform is something that Republicans believe should have come about some time ago. The republican Congress believed that the old welfare system was a disgrace to the American people and led to dependency which is supposed to the the problem it was meant to solve. The 104th Congress, a republican one under Clinton's leadership, has long been pushing for the passage of a welfare reform bill. President Clinton finally gave in to the cries of Congress, signing the Welfare Reform Bill into law on August 22, 1996. This came after Clinton had previously vetoed two versions of the reform bill.
The Welfare Reform Bill, like much of new legislation, is seen as having two sides. Proponents of the program, policy makers, and many people who are not a part of the welfare system see this legislation as the answer to many problems of Americans. Many participants of the welfare programs feel like the old problems are still going to be in existence along with having new problems arise. The Welfare Reform Bill affects seven major programs: Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), School Lunch and other child nutrition programs, Foster Care, Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and Earned Income Tax Credit. Families headed by able bodied participants receive guaranteed benefits. In 1995 the amount of these benefits averaged $12,000 per year along with additional programs being available to the poor. Congress hopes to slow the rate of spending in each of these areas. This new reform system does not allow for the high cuts in school lunches, child welfare and help for disabled children as previous reforms had proposed. States can also use federal money to provide vouchers for children whose parents are unable to find work.
This new law also affects may other sectors of life. Immigrants are perhaps one of those groups who are least benefiting from new welfare reforms. Most non citizens, with the exception of refugees, asylees, and those whose deportation is being withheld along with those immigrants who have worked in the United States for ten years, will lose SSI and food stamp benefits. For current immigrants after January 1 states had the option to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSBG and Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF). The new immigrants entering our country will be barred from federal aid for 5 years. Certain programs are exempt from the five year bar including emergency medical aid, school lunch benefits, child nutrition act benefits, foster care and adoption services and immunization and treatment of communicable diseases. Although immigrant families may feel they are being denied the basic aid reformers beg to differ. Immigrant children, the true helpless ones as they see it, are being aided in most of the same ways as American children.
The number of people on welfare seems to have increased significantly in recent years. Immigration may have added to these numbers but the true increase is believed to have come within the already existing welfare families with illigitimate births. In 1960, 5.3% of births were illegitimate while today almost 30% are. These out of wedlock pregnancies often mean poverty. The rise in births has warranted abstinence training funded at $50 million a year. States who reduce illegitimacy rates without the increase in abortion rates will be given extra funding. The rise of out of marriage births leads to a cycle of dependency considering many of these mothers fell unable to get a job because of lack of child care and lack of skills. These mothers often continue to have more babies and the dependency just grows stronger, which is not the effect that welfare is supposed to have. On the average the stay on welfare is short but almost 65% of people at any given time will be on welfare for eight years or longer. Evidence has shown that children raised on welfare at seven times more apt to be dependent as adults. A study done at the University of Ohio showed that individuals who do not receive welfare are two and a half times more likely to be out of poverty in the next year than am individual who receives welfare.
The purpose of welfare has somehow become perverted over time and now, when changes are finally being made, the reactions are ones of both pleasure and outrage. Work and independence are two values often associated with the working class citizens of the United States and it isn't often that people who are welfare recipients are described in this manner. Lazy and ungrateful, dependent, and unwilling; these are more common ways that welfare recipients are described. These stereotypes may not be correct but people begin to believe them. The new welfare reform passed under Clinton attempts to change the system of dependency to one where everyone, welfare recipient or not, feels a sense of independence and understand work ethics, and knows the satisfaction of bringing home a paycheck. For years welfare recipients received welfare checks, food stamps and medical assistance at no real expense to them. Just make below a certain level of income and the government will support you. This notion has been one that has brought about great controversy for many years. Why should these able bodied people benefit from the work of other people?
President Clinton had experimented over the first three and a half years of his presidency with sixty nine different welfare reform programs. The one program that that perhaps has brought about the most controversy is workfare; the chance for welfare recipients to work for a paycheck. Workfare has existed in various states for many years and in its experimental state has meant various things. The Carter and Reagan administrations included welfare proposals that incorporated work obligation where people able to work must do so in order to continue receiving benefits. Certain programs are different from others but the one thing that is universal is that work must be performed in order for welfare to be received. Participation in these work programs is mandatory and there is a direct exchange between the society whose money is going to pay these welfare recipients who works. Under the new law welfare becomes a two way street. The one way handout system will hopefully be a thing of the past. The law puts requirements on the states and on the welfare recipients. Recipients lose benefits if they fail to meet certain standard. Federal welfare reforms can limit monetary assistance to two years if recipients are not working or are not exempt for a food reason. Federal reforms now also place a five year limit on monetary assistance to most families. The individual states may use state money to give assistance to families who, because of these time limits, lose federal assistance.
The new target of welfare is work. In a four year period, from 1992 to 1996, 44 states adopted individual work programs. The federal reforms are now putting requirements on states to put welfare recipients to work or they will face financial sanctions. States are now putting a greater emphasis on programs that help immediate work activities (such as job searches, community service, or on the job training). They are becoming more strict in their enforcement of workfare requirements and are now requiring recipients to work activity in a certain amount of time after receiving benefits. Twenty eight states require work to begin immediately or within six months of the start of benefits. Certain states vary in their rules such as Oklahoma which, after thirty six months, if a recipient who is unable unsubsidized work shall be allowed to participate in a workfare program. Wisconsin's program "W-2" required immediate work participation for forty hours a week which for some people includes ten to twelve hours of education and training. Maryland gives its recipients ninety days to start work whether it be subsidized or a community work project. Mississippi is perhaps the hardest of all states on its recipients where its Work First Demonstration Project ends all assistance, benefits, child care and transportation, and partial food stamp and Medicaid assistance if a recipient refuses or fails to participate. These time limits can help make the change to welfare a little easier for some by allowing time and help in finding a job and may offer training and education to help the chance of finding a job. Time limits also provide a little boost for people to find jobs instead of just becoming dependent on welfare. The limits attempt to put an end to the permanency of welfare.
For each state requirements vary. There are various activities that can be counted as work participation. Certain states require recipients to work in a community service project or a subsidized job while others may count a job for a minimum number of hours as meeting the work requirement. Federal standards require a certain percent of AFDC recipients to take private sector jobs but if a state can not reduce the number of welfare recipients through private placements, community service work will be required. In order to received AFDC benefits, community service must be fully completed otherwise his/her benefits will be cut accordingly. States must also create jobs for the amount of people they are requiring to participate. Some states such as Maryland offer private employers incentives in hiring AFDC recipients such as wage subsidies, tax credits, and paying the employer premiums for worker's compensation and unemployment insurance. Maryland offers an $1,800 first year tax credit to such employers and South Carolina state agencies must target AFDC recipients for at least ten percent of positions requiring a high school diploma or less. A version of workfare has recently been introduce in New York City. The Workers' Rights Board, a project of "New York Jobs with Justice" tries, much like federal workfare programs, to bring in the idea that every person is entitled to a job with decent wages and working conditions along with correct treatment from the employer.
New York's version of workfare, the Work Experience Program (WEP) was developed as a response to federal work requirements of welfare. There were an estimated 75,000 participants in 1996 and by the beginning of 1997 100,000 people were hoped to be involved. WEP participants must work a minimum of twenty hours a week at an assigned work site. One advantage in this program is that child care is provided. Meals and transportation are not and also no compensation other than the welfare benefits is provided. This is a job training program but some workers do tasks normally assigned to full time public sector workers (city workers). There are some sites which are sponsored by community based organizations and nonprofit agencies but private companies have not been allowed to participate. As with many other states, if recipients refuse to work they can be sanctioned, reassigned or thrown off of welfare. The fear in many places including New York is that there will not be enough jobs to go around. New York has never in the past been able to produce 100,000 public sector jobs in one year and this is the reason that so many participants wind up doing busy work and gain no true job training experience. many people do believe that these programs are worthwhile and are truly beneficial to all of those people involved.
Workfare has been seen by some as a program that forces welfare recipients to work in low paying, menial jobs in order to receive their welfare benefits. Real job skills and real jobs are rarely obtainable by these people and the number of people dependent on welfare has not dropped. Besides for Massachusetts whose program is strictly voluntary, participation is mandatory. Many people believe that no valuable skills are gained and there really are no benefits from such programs. One of the biggest debates involves the children of workfare participants. Little or no child care services are made available leaving the children the chance of greater neglect and abandonment.
Over the past twenty five years many states have experimented with various work programs. Many differences do exist but the one similarity is that all try to promote individual and family self sufficiency. In order to gage the success of these programs many evaluations have been made. The Manpower Research Corporation (MDRC) started a 5 year study in 1982 to look at work initiatives (the study was a random assignment of more than 35,000 individuals.) Results showed that 4 out of 5 programs produced positive employment gains for AFDC mothers. Some saw this as a great stride forward but others saw the gains as minimal and when compared to the money the programs were costing saw little gain.
A separate study was conducted by Friedlander and Burtless (1994) which looked at the progress of three state initiated programs and one federally funded program over five years. The results of this study, like the MDRC study, can been looked at both positively and negatively. There was an increase in employment among AFDC recipients, reduced receipt of benefits and in 2 out of 4 programs money was saved by the government. The down side of this study is that members of the control group saw employment gains at the same rate and these programs did nothing to improve job quality.
For many working class people the concern exists that workfare will replace paid workers. There have been funding cuts in both the public sector and voluntary sector leading to higher layoffs and cuts in service. The government promises that workfare placements will not replace paid workers but the fear of this still exists. New York has see this happen already. 33,000 welfare workers received the equivalent of minimum wage in welfare benefits while 20,000 paid employees lost their jobs. More than 50% of the employers who participated said that if the program didn't exist they would have just went ahead and hired someone for the job. Workfare is being supported by governments when unemployment is highest and jobs are the most difficult to come by. There is also the belief that workfare causes lower wages and working conditions for all workers. Money will be taken away from other resources including training programs which were designed for people who need and want real training and job advancement.
Welfare reform has truly tried to mover our welfare system into one where change is possible. For many years people have seen welfare as a system of dependency and endlessness. Federal reforms are attempting to change this way of thinking. many new programs have been introduced and many changes have been made in already existing programs. People were unsatisfied with the way the welfare system has previously been operating yet others still have complaints with the changes that have been introduced. The long term effects of such changes is not clear and states still have a long way to go in implementing certain programs. One thing that is clear is that the government is finally attempting a change and that in itself is a major step forward.
url=http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/poverty/whitmaf.htm
url=http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opa/facts/prwora96.htm
url=http://www.heritage.org/heritage/congress/chapt5.html
url=http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/wm015.txt
url=http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/welfare/q&a.htm
url=http://www.apwa.org/reform/tanf.htm
url=http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html
url=http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/welfare/wklegbrf.htm
url=http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/welfare/timlim.htm
url=http://www.igc.org/ny@work/wephearings/wepfacts.html
url=http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/famlife/bulletin/volume1/bull14a.htm
url=http://www.handsnet.org/handsnet2/welfare.reform/Articles/art.824756291.html
http://epn.org/sage/rsfa966.html