The Failures Of Welfare Reform

My own experience with the social welfare agencies in several states, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, California and Nevada indicates that not only was the system broken before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, but the broken status of the system has remained consistent since the passage of the act. While this article purports a minimum of "lost cases," my own anectdotal experience tells me that a lot of folks that used to be eligible for welfare are no longer eligible, so no longer bother to apply... and many of those that have been on welfare or other aid (food stamps, WIC, etc.) are so discouraged with the humiliation of obtaining aid that they don't bother unless dire circunstances crumble into family chaos.

Like the unemployment system that drops figures for those no longer "on the dole," there are literally millions of US citizens existing in poverty because they are working without benefits, without a living wage and without adequate protections against illegal actions by employers. My mother is a case on point. She has been working as a bus driver for a school bus service not affiluated with any one school system. She drives a bus for special needs students and has to tavel the roadways of the Boston area under some grueling traffic conditions. Her "aide" gets paid from the time he/she is picked up enroute to the first scheduled pickup all the way back to being dropped off at his/her home. Bus drivers, who are paid approximately the same scale, are only paid to the time that he/she drops off the last student. Any time spent in one of Boston's notorious traffic snarls is not paid time. Additionally, the driver is expected to maintain the bus in terms of cleanliness, washing the vehicle, gas and oil refilling, etc.... and none of the time spent doing this is paid for by the company... and there are definitive restrictions on using the bus for any personal use, so there isn't any benefit of being able to drive the vehicle home.

A review of my mother's schedule and time spent mainitaining the vehicle, driving to and from home base, and other tasks indicates that her pay check would ordinarily allow for 1-7 hours of overtime each week... but the company she works for has all bus drivers convinced that if they complain, file a wage complaint or even hint at calling for a union, they will lose their job. Like many living on incomes below the poverty line, losing a job is a catastrophic event that so terrifies them that they are not willing to complain or use the system to address abuses. Additionally, since the current EEOC and state labor boards lean so far in favor of employers that the likelihood of winning a labor or wage complaint is considered futile, many complaints remain unreported and unprocessed.

As the article below reports, some former welfare recipients are single parents now working--and trying to make ends meet--on the lowest wages our society can offer, in jobs that have no benefits. This was one of the reasons, prior to 1996, that many single parents (mostly single mothers) would remain on welfare rather than seek work: a limited amount of income with health care, food stamps, child care aid and rental assistance was more manageable than working at a low-paying, no benefit job with a completely arbitrary schedule.

Like our immigration policies, our drug sentencing laws/guidelines, and health care programs, we have failed to produce a welfare policy that genuinely provides a safety net for the poorest among us. Many on the conservative side of the political spectrum--especially the Christian Right--point to the wide spread claims of welfare fruad as the reason for the reform approach. But the internal studies of welfare agencies demonstrate that 70 to 90 percent of welfare fraud was (is) committed by 1-5% of welfare recipients, and the enforcement/investigation of such fraud costs 2-5 times more than the abuse/fraud itself.

Surprisingly, these same folks that do not want the government to be involved in "costly" welfare services, do not mind the expenditures made on corporate welfare; the billions lost in defense industry waste, overbilling and fraud; the billions spent in foreign aid to dictatorial regimes and ineffective foreign policy efforts (i.e. Israel, Palestine, Iraq during Saddam's reign, Saudi Arabia, Iran before the revolution, Panama under Noriega, etc.); and the failure of numerous federal and state programs that benefit big business (i.e. Farm Subsidies that go to big agrobusinesses rather than small family farms).

End Welfare Lite as We Know It

It’s been nearly 10 years since President Bill Clinton signed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. The anniversary has been the occasion for various news stories and opinion pieces, most of them praising the law’s success in reducing welfare dependency.

And it’s true: welfare caseloads have fallen an astounding 60 percent since reform efforts began. But even as a strong supporter of welfare reform, I find it difficult to muster unqualified enthusiasm for the law and how it has been carried out.

In the years immediately before the law’s passage, welfare dependency seemed out of control. From 1989 to 1994, for example, caseloads rose 34 percent. Analysts argued over how much to blame the weak economy; worsening social problems, primarily out-of-wedlock births and drug addiction; and lax agency administration. But few claimed that another 1.3 million people on welfare was a good thing.

Responding to the growing concern, Mr. Clinton campaigned for president on a promise to “end welfare as we know it.” But he had in mind something far different from what the Republicans handed him in 1996. Nevertheless, he signed the legislation that ended the welfare entitlement and gave states wide discretion, as long as they put 50 percent of recipients in work-related activities and imposed a five-year limit on financial aid.

Many feared a social calamity. But in the years since, although researchers have strived mightily, they’ve found only small pockets of additional hardship. Even better, the earnings of most single mothers actually rose.

These twin realities — decreased caseloads and little sign of serious additional hardship — are why both Republicans and Democrats think welfare reform has been a success.

But the results are more mixed. Caseloads fell, yet they did so seemingly regardless of what actions the states took. They fell in states with strong work-first requirements, and those without them; in states with mandatory work programs, and those without them; in states with job training programs, and those without them; and in states with generous child care subsidies, and those without them.

In fact, the consensus among academic researchers is that it took more than welfare reform to end welfare as we knew it. If one looks at all the studies, the most reasonable conclusion is that although welfare reform was an important factor in caseload reduction — accounting for 25 percent to 35 percent of the decline — the strong economy was probably more important (35 percent to 45 percent). Expanded aid to low-income, working families, primarily through the Earned Income Tax Credit, was almost as important (20 percent to 30 percent).

What’s more, the best estimates are that only about 40 percent to 50 percent of mothers who left welfare have steady, full-time jobs. Another 15 percent or so work part time. According to surveys in various states, these mothers are earning about $8 an hour. That’s about $16,000 a year for full-time employment. It is their story that the supporters of welfare reform celebrate, but $16,000 is not a lot of money, especially for a mother with two children.

What about the other 50 percent of families who left welfare? Well, some mothers did not “need” welfare, perhaps because they were living with parents or a boyfriend, and some left because of intense pressure from caseworkers. More troubling, about a quarter of those who leave welfare return to the program, with many cycling in and out as they face temporary ups and downs.

In addition, when they’re off welfare, some of these families survive only because they still receive government assistance — through food stamps (an average of more than $2,500), the Women, Infants and Children program (about $1,800 for infants and new mothers), Supplemental Security Income (an average of over $6,500), or housing aid (an average of $6,000). Their children also qualify for Medicaid. In reality, these families are still on welfare because they are still receiving benefits and not working — call it “welfare lite.”

So, yes, welfare reform reduced welfare dependency, but not as much as suggested by the political rhetoric, and a great deal of dependency is now diffused and hidden within larger social welfare programs.

As a result, public and political concern about dependency has largely disappeared.

The tougher work and participation requirements added in this year’s reauthorization of the law could help states address the deeper needs of welfare families. But many states are already planning to avoid these new strictures with various administrative gimmicks, like placing the most troubled and disorganized families in state-financed programs where federal rules do not apply. This would only further obscure the high levels of continuing dependency.

For now, welfare reform deserves only two cheers. Not bad for a historic change in policy, but not good enough for us to be even close to satisfied.

Douglas J. Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.